JMIR J Med Internet Res Journal of Medical Internet Research 1438-8871 Gunther Eysenbach Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto, Canada v11i1e2 19275978 10.2196/jmir.1212 Corrigenda and Addenda Correction: Online Advertising as a Public Health and Recruitment Tool: Comparison of Different Media Campaigns to Increase Demand for Smoking Cessation Interventions Eysenbach Gunther Graham Amanda L PhD 1
The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies American Legacy Foundation 1724 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 USA +1 202 454 5938 +1 202 454 5785 agraham@americanlegacy.org
Milner Pat 2 Saul Jessie E PhD 3 Pfaff Lillian PhD 4 4 New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services Trenton NJ USA 3 ClearWay Minnesota Minneapolis MN USA 2 Healthways QuitNet LLC Boston MA USA 1 Georgetown University Medical Center / Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center Washington DC Washington DC USA Jan-Mar 2009 16 01 2009 11 1 e2 13 1 2009 © Amanda L Graham, Pat Milner, Jessie E Saul, Lillian Pfaff. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.01.2009.   2008

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

A number of errors regarding the cited references occurred in the article by Amanda Graham et al. (J Med Internet Res 2008;10(5):e50). The corrected version was republished on the JMIR website on 14.01.2009 at http://www.jmir.org/2008/5/e50 and resubmitted to PubMed Central; however, we have no control over other websites and aggregators which may mirror content from JMIR and may not update the original version. The corrected version can be identified by citing 60 references, while the originally published version cited only 57 references. Beginning with reference #13, citations in the text were mismatched with references at the end of the manuscript. In addition, the authors inadvertently omitted three references (#48, #58, and #59 in the corrected version).