Corrigendum to: Comparison Between Photofluorography and Standard Fluoroscopic Voiding Cystourethrography in Evaluating Vesicoureteral Reflux in Children With Urinary Tract Infection [Nephro Urol Mon.2012;4(3): 541-544. DOI: 10.5812/numonthly.3562]

The following sentence should be added to the end of the result in the abstract: " The results of this study are evident that VCUG with photofluorographic hardcopy provides high diagnostic value with very low radiation dose to patients (patient dose reduced by 5-9 folds). " In the abstract in line 3 of conclusions " 50-90% " should be changed to " 80-89% " : " our study suggests that the high validity and excellent agreement of the photofluorography method in the diagnosis and grading of VUR, which is comparable to spot films and represents a 80-89% reduction in radiation, makes it the preferred method. " In the reference part reference 1 should be replaced with the following one: Schumacher R and Allmendinger H. Optimization of pulsed fluoroscopy in pediatric radiology using voiding cystourethrography as an example. MedicaMundi 2008;52:18-24. Inaddition, references 13, 14 and 15 are related to Persli-den et al. , Almen et al. and Martin et al. respectively. Finally, the author would like to acknowledge Miss Golsa Tabatabaei for editing this manuscript and all staff members in the studied centers which without their assistance this work may not have been accomplished. We also extend our thanks to the office of vice president for research of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences for funding this work.