Diabetes & Metabolism 35 (2009) 239–240 Erratum Erratum to “Relationship between the hyperinsulinaemic–euglycaemic clamp and a new simple index assessing insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese postmenopausal women” [Diabetes Metab 2007;33:261–8] J.-P. Bastard a,b,c , J.-M. Vandernotte a , M. Faraj d , A.D. Karelis d,1 , L. Messier d , F.M. Malita d , D. Garrel d , D. Prud’homme e , R. Rabasa-Lhoret d,f,∗ a Service de biochimie et hormonologie, hôpital Tenon, AP–HP, 75020 Paris, France b Inserm, U680, 75012 Paris, France c Faculté de médecine, UMRS680, universitéPierre-et-Marie-Curie–Paris-6, 75005 Paris, France d Laboratoire des dysfonctions métaboliques, department of nutrition, université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada e School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada f Centre de recherche, centre hospitalier de Montréal, université de Montréal, hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, pavillon Masson, 3850 Saint-Urbain, Québec, Canada H2W 1T7 Received 11 March 2009; accepted 15 March 2009 Available online 6 May 2009 Keywords: OGTT; HOMA; QUICKI; Hyperinsulinaemic glucose clamp; Insulin sensitivity; Insulin resistance Mots clés : HGPO ; HOMA ; QUICKI ; Insulino-résistance ; Insulino-sensibilité ; Clamp hyperinsulinémique euglycémique Following a question asked by Dr Denis R. Joanisse (University of Laval, Quebec, Canada) about the statistical test we used to compare correlations in our article published in 2007 in Diabetes & Metabolism [1], we reanalyzed our data as well as the relevance of the test proposed by Zar [2]. We found that we had misinterpreted the usefulness of this test, which is more appropriate for comparing correlations between independent populations rather than common variables within the same group, as we did. Based on this reanalysis, the SIisOGTT appears to be a practical index in the present cohort, with the highest correlation with the euglycaemic–hyperinsulinaemic clamp, the gold-standard measure of insulin sensitivity. However, it was not statistically superior to other indices as suggested in our original manuscript [1]. We wish to thank Dr Joanisse for his question, as it led us to identify and correct our mistake, and apologize for having made the error. We now propose the following erratum for our previously published article [1]. The following changes need to be made: • on page 264, under Statistics: “Comparison between correlations was made by the method reported by Zar [20]” should be replaced by “Comparison between correlations was made by the method reported by Dawson & Trapp [20], using the following formula: t = (r xy –r xz ) √ (n – 3) (1 + r yz )/2 [(1 – (r xy ) 2 – (r xz ) 2 – (r yz ) 2 + 2 (r xy xr xz xr yz )]; • on page 264: “by using the comparison test between correlations from Zar [20]” should be deleted and replaced by “Moreover, although not significantly different for most of the correlations tested, we found that the correlation of SIisOGTT with the clamp DOI of original article:10.1016/j.diabet.2007.02.004. ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: remi.rabasa-lhoret@umontreal.ca (R. Rabasa-Lhoret). 1 Present adress: Department of kinanthropology, University of Quebec, Montréal, Quebec, Canada. 1262-3636/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2009.03.001