The authors regret, in the above-mentioned article, we discovered an error related to standards for adequate precision in systematic reviews of continuous variables. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: “Because it may give false reassurance, we hesitate to offer a rule-of-thumb threshold for the absolute number of patients required for adequate precision for continuous variables. For example, using the usual standards of α (0.05) and β (0.20), and an effect size of 0.2 standard deviations, representing a small effect, requires a total samples size of approximately 400 (200 per group) - a sample size that may not be sufficient to ensure prognostic balance.” The sample size stated is incorrect: the correct number is 800 (400 per group). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The authors are grateful to Mark Chatfield for pointing out this error.
ASJC Scopus subject areas