Correction to: Effects of implementing a postabortion care strategy in Kinshasa referral hospitals, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Following publication of the original article [1] two errors have been identified in the abstract and the plain English summary. The incorrect and correct information is listed below; the changes are shown in bold. Incorrect Abstract The implementation of PAC strategy in Kinshasa referral hospitals has resulted in the utilization of WHO recommended uterine evacuation method MVA (29.3% more in the experimental structures, p = 0.025), a significant decline in sharp-curettage (19.3% less, p = 0.132), and a decline in the duration of hospitalization of patients admitted for PAC (1 day less, p = 0.020). Plain English summary The implementation of PAC strategy in Kinshasa referral hospitals has resulted in the utilization of WHO recommended uterine evacuation method MVA (29.3% more in the experimental structures, p = 0.025), a significant decline in sharp-curettage (19.3% less, p = 0.132), and a decline in the duration of hospitalization of patients admitted for PAC (1 day less, p = 0.020). Correct Abstract The implementation of PAC strategy in Kinshasa referral hospitals has resulted in the utilization of WHO recommended uterine evacuation method MVA (29.3% more in the experimental structures, p = 0.025), a nonsignificant decline in sharp-curettage (19.3% less, p = 0.132), and a decline in the duration of hospitalization of patients admitted for PAC (1 day less, p = 0.020). Plain English summary The implementation of PAC strategy in Kinshasa referral hospitals has resulted in the utilization of WHO recommended uterine evacuation method MVA (29.3% more in the experimental structures, p = 0.025), a nonsignificant decline in sharp-curettage (19.3% less, p = 0.132), and a decline in the duration of hospitalization of patients admitted for PAC (1 day less, p = 0.020).