Abstract
In the original article, two values from the studies by Chacko et al (2013) and Grunewaldt et al (2013) were incorrectly coded in the main analysis examining the effect of Cogmed on inattention in daily life. With the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on inattention in daily life compared with a control group is SMD = -0.37 and the 95% confidence intervals are -0.63 to -0.11. As previously reported, this overall effect is significant (p =.005). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups, as previously reported. Details of these corrected analyses are provided below, together with further consideration of publication bias and the small sample sizes of the included studies. For visuospatial working memory, the Grunewaldt et al (2013) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on visuospatial working memory compared with a control group is SMD = 0.62, the 95% confidence intervals are 0.24 to 1.01, and this overall effect is significant (p =.001). For verbal working memory, the Gropper et al (unpublished) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on verbal working memory compared with a control group is SMD = 0.41, the 95% confidence intervals are 0.19 to 0.63, and this overall effect is significant (p =.0003).
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e0167373 |
| Journal | PLoS ONE |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue number | 11 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 1 Nov 2016 |
Cite this
}
Correction : Benefits of a working memory training program for inattention in daily life: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PLoS ONE (2016) 10:3 (e0119522) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119522). / Spencer-Smith, Megan; Klingberg, Torkel.
In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 11, No. 11, e0167373, 01.11.2016.Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment / Debate › Other › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Correction
T2 - Benefits of a working memory training program for inattention in daily life: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PLoS ONE (2016) 10:3 (e0119522) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119522)
AU - Spencer-Smith, Megan
AU - Klingberg, Torkel
PY - 2016/11/1
Y1 - 2016/11/1
N2 - In the original article, two values from the studies by Chacko et al (2013) and Grunewaldt et al (2013) were incorrectly coded in the main analysis examining the effect of Cogmed on inattention in daily life. With the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on inattention in daily life compared with a control group is SMD = -0.37 and the 95% confidence intervals are -0.63 to -0.11. As previously reported, this overall effect is significant (p =.005). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups, as previously reported. Details of these corrected analyses are provided below, together with further consideration of publication bias and the small sample sizes of the included studies. For visuospatial working memory, the Grunewaldt et al (2013) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on visuospatial working memory compared with a control group is SMD = 0.62, the 95% confidence intervals are 0.24 to 1.01, and this overall effect is significant (p =.001). For verbal working memory, the Gropper et al (unpublished) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on verbal working memory compared with a control group is SMD = 0.41, the 95% confidence intervals are 0.19 to 0.63, and this overall effect is significant (p =.0003).
AB - In the original article, two values from the studies by Chacko et al (2013) and Grunewaldt et al (2013) were incorrectly coded in the main analysis examining the effect of Cogmed on inattention in daily life. With the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on inattention in daily life compared with a control group is SMD = -0.37 and the 95% confidence intervals are -0.63 to -0.11. As previously reported, this overall effect is significant (p =.005). There were no significant differences between any of the subgroups, as previously reported. Details of these corrected analyses are provided below, together with further consideration of publication bias and the small sample sizes of the included studies. For visuospatial working memory, the Grunewaldt et al (2013) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on visuospatial working memory compared with a control group is SMD = 0.62, the 95% confidence intervals are 0.24 to 1.01, and this overall effect is significant (p =.001). For verbal working memory, the Gropper et al (unpublished) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on verbal working memory compared with a control group is SMD = 0.41, the 95% confidence intervals are 0.19 to 0.63, and this overall effect is significant (p =.0003).
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84996503791&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0167373
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0167373
M3 - Comment / Debate
VL - 11
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 11
M1 - e0167373
ER -