Erratum: Vol. 63, No. SS-11
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields



Publication Date Range:


Document Data


Document Type:






Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page


Erratum: Vol. 63, No. SS-11

  • December 04 2020

  • Source: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 69(48):1834
Filetype[PDF-60.28 KB]

  • English

  • Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
    • Description:
      Erratum for: Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2011. Pazol K, Creanga AA, Burley KD, Jamieson DJ. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014 Nov 28;63(11):1-41.

      In the Surveillance Summary “Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2011,” data on the number of known previous induced abortions for women having abortions in this reporting year were erroneously included for New York City. These data did not meet reporting Standards and should have been excluded from this report. When corrected, among women with abortions in the reporting year, the proportion with no previous induced abortions increased, and the proportion with one or more previous induced abortions decreased.

      On page 8, the first paragraph should have read “Data from the 37 areas that reported the number of previous abortions for women who obtained abortions in 2011 indicate that the majority (56.9%) had no previous abortions, 36.1% had one to two previous abortions, and 7.1% had three or more previous abortions (Table 19). Among the 30 reporting areas¶¶¶¶ that provided data for the relevant years of comparison (2002 versus 2006, 2007 versus 2011, and 2010 versus 2011), the percentage of women who had one to two previous abortions was stable, although there was a decrease among women who had zero previous abortions and an increase among women who had three or more previous abortions. Among the areas included in this comparison, 57.8%, 36.0%, and 6.2% of women had zero, one to two, or three or more previous abortions, respectively, in 2002; by contrast, 57.0%, 35.9%, and 7.2% of women had zero, one to two, or three or more previous abortions, respectively, in 2011.” New York City should have been included in the ¶¶¶¶ footnote, which lists reporting areas that were not included in these estimates.

      In Table 19, the line for New York City should be deleted. For the total line, the numbers and percentages should have read 229,909 (56.9), 102,612 (25.4), 43,159 (10.7), 28,593 (7.1), 404,273 (97.8). The * footnote should have read “Data from 37 reporting areas; excludes 15 areas (California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York City, New York State, North Carolina, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) that did not report, did not report by the number of previous induced abortions, or did not meet reporting Standards.” The total in the ** footnote should have been 413,504.

    • Pubmed ID:
    • Pubmed Central ID:
    • Document Type:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at