Growth hormone in growth hormone deficiency

In this editorial by Paul Saenger (13 July, pp 58-9), we inadvertently mixed up some references and failed to print the author's competing interests. In the reference list, references 7, 8, 9, and 10 should be numbered 8, 9, 10, and 11 respectively; reference 11 should not be there at all; and the new reference 7 should read:

Schoenau E et al on behalf of the Germany Lilly Growth Response Study Group. A new and accurate prediction model for growth response to growth hormone treatment in children with GH deficiency. Eur J Endocrinol 2001;144:13-20.

The sentence “The mean duration of treatment was 6.2 years—the duration of treatment was thus twice as long as the French study and the dose of treatment was also twice as much, that is, 0.3 mg/kg/week (0.9 IU/kg/week compared to 0.14 mg/kg/week),” towards the end of the penultimate paragraph, should be supported by reference 8. Other references numbers in the text remain the same.

Professor Saenger has advised the growth hormone industry on scientific issues and has received honorariums.