My favorite parts of the article:<p><i>The 2007 study should be seen as a snapshot of what was known then. Science is progressive. If something turns out to be wrong we can fix it next time around.</i><p>In this case, it turns out the mistakes were fixed the <i>first time</i> around: before the paper was published.<p>A hint: in general, when writing a review article, you don't both to write about stuff that isn't finished.<p>At most, you give it a brief mention in a section "future directions and open problems". You discuss it with superlatives like, "this looks promising". You don't, however, pass it off as part of what is <i>known</i>.