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)

Megan Spencer-Smith, Torkel Klingberg

Research output: Contribution to journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-review

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 For verbal working memory, the Gropper et al (unpublished) study was incorrectly coded and with the correct coding the overall effect size of the intervention on verbal working memory compared with a control group is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 languageEnglish
Article numbere0167373
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume11
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2016

Cite this

@article{f577b0721f184f0f9cb0d63227f1cf06,
title = "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)",
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).",
author = "Megan Spencer-Smith and Torkel Klingberg",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0167373",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "11",

}

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 journalComment / DebateOtherpeer-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 -