Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: Are behavioral interventions effective in increasing physical activity at 12 to 36 months in adults aged 55 to 70 years? a systematic review and meta-analysis

Back to article

  1. Correction

    Nicola O'Brien, Newcastle University

    21 May 2013

    Since publishing this manuscript we have identified a typographical error in the sample size of one included trial (#32 - Lawton et al. 2008) reported in Figures 3 and 5 (self-reported physical activity duration at 12 months measured on a continuous scale). The sample size should read n=544 for the intervention group and n=545 for the control group, as is reported for this trial in Figure 4.

    This error does not alter the overall findings of this meta-analysis (the magnitude of pooled effect size or heterogeneity) or the conclusions we draw.

    The data reported in the text relating to the forest plot illustrated in Figure 3 should read:
    ¿Figure 3: SMD = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.27; I2 = 41%, 95% CI = 0 to 74¿.

    The data reported in the text in the section entitled exploratory sub-group analysis, relating to the association between the intervention effect and the number of intervention contacts, should read:
    ¿Based on a median split, intervention effect was negatively associated with intervention intensity such that interventions that had more intervention contacts (¿11 contacts) did not have a detectable intervention effect on PA duration (SMD = 0.20, 95% CI = -0.08 to 0.47, I2 = 71%) while interventions that had less intervention contacts (¿11 contacts) had a positive intervention effect (SMD = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.26, I2 = 41%). However, there was no statistically significant difference between subgroups (Chi2 = 0.04, P = 0.84)¿.

    Corrected Figures 3 and 5 are available on request.

    Competing interests