Corrigendum to “In vivo biochemical evaluations of some β-lactam group antibiotics on glutathione reductase and glutathione S-transferase enzyme activities” [Life Sci., volume 231 (2019) 116572] (Life Sciences (2019) 231, (S0024320519304989), (10.1016/j.lfs.2019.116572))

The authors regret that some of the terms and methods applied in the statistical analysis (Section 2.5) section of the original article were misspelled. The detailed and understandable form of the statistical methods applied is given below. These statements will clear the confusion of readers in terms of biostatistics. These textual corrections do not affect the interpretation of the data or the conclusions drawn. The authors apologize to the journal and readers for these unintentional errors. Firstly, authors would like to replace Section 2.5 (statistical analysis) with the following text. “The assumption of normality regarding the distribution of enzyme activity data (GR and GSTs) by groups and time was analyzed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. The homogeneity of the population variances of the enzyme levels in the groups was examined by Levene test. Since the parametric test assumptions were met, the mean and standard deviation were used for the descriptive statistical values of the distribution of the parameters used in this study according to groups and time. Two-way mixed ANOVA model was used for the differences in the activity data of enzymes (GR and GSTs) according to groups and time. While the one-way ANOVA analysis was used to compare the enzyme levels measured at similar hours between the groups, the repeated ANOVA analysis was used for the variation of the difference between repeated measurement levels of enzymes in any group over time (1st hour, 3rd hour, 5th hour and 7th hour). The Bonferroni post-hoc test was then used for multiple comparisons between groups. Post-hoc test results are shown with letters in the tables and with symbols in the graphics. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) software was used for statistical analysis and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.” Secondly, authors want to use the word “statistically significant” instead of “meaningful values” in the description of Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. © 2023 Elsevier Inc.