Erratum

In the article, "Epidemiology of Pruritus: Global Burden of Disease Research from 1990 to 2021 and Future Trend Predictions". [Dermatology. 2025;241(5-6):547-556. https://doi.org/10.1159/000547821] by Wang et al., the authors identified an error in the data used to generate Figure 4. During preparation of the figure, incorrect data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 dataset were used. Specifically, during the generation of the frontier analysis/bibliometric-style figure, the authors inadvertently reused a script that had been configured for an earlier inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) analysis.Fig. 4.Frontier analysis based on the sociodemographic index (SDI) and age-standardized disability-adjusted life years rate (ASDR) due to pruritus. a Frontier analysis based on SDI and pruritus ASDR from 1990 to 2021. b Frontier analysis based on SDI and pruritus ASDR in 2021.The authors have since regenerated Figure 4 and repeated the key analytical steps using datasets from other GBD publications. They reproduced results consistent with those reports (DOIs: 10.1177/20420188241227295 and 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001071), confirming that the data handling procedures, code, and outputs are now functioning as intended.The original sentence read:"The five countries or regions with the largest effective gaps from the frontier included the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, the USA, and Iceland. Conversely, the five countries or regions with the smallest effective gaps included Yemen, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Lao People's Democratic Republic, and Somalia (Fig. 4)."The corrected sentence should read:"The five countries or regions with the largest effective gaps from the frontier included Taiwan (Province of China), Turkey, Lithuania, Canada, and the United States of America. Conversely, the five countries or regions with the smallest effective gaps included Somalia, Niger, Nepal, Haiti, and Bangladesh (Fig. 4)."The corrected Figure 4 is shown here.