H. Rosendahl‐Riise, U. Spielau, A. H. Ranhoff, O. A. Gudbrandsen & J. Dierkes3
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 2016, 30, 3‐15
An error was discovered in both Figures 2 and 3 in Page 8. The left and right graph labels ‘Comparator’ and ‘Intervention’ should have been removed. In Figure 3, the intervention and comparator group have changed place. The correct figures are as follows:
Figure 2.
Hand grip strength (HGS).
Figure 3.
Timed‐up and go test (TUG). A reduction in the time used for the TUG in fact means an improvement. Therefore, the algebraic sign of the TUG results had to be changed.
The authors also wish to change words and sentences within the article.
On page 3, under the abstract section, the word ‘improvement’ must be inserted. Thus, the correct conclusion should be:
‘In conclusion, we observed no improvement in muscle strength after the administration of vitamin D with or without calcium supplements. We did find a small but significant improvement of mobility. However, this is based on a limited number of studies and participants’.
On Page 10, second column. The word ‘increase’ should be replaced with ‘decrease’ and the word ‘improvement’ has to be inserted. The correct sentences should be as follow:
‘Applying a random effects model, we observed a significant mean decrease of 0.3 s in TUG (95% CI = 0.1–0.5 s) after vitamin D supplementation. Thus, the decrease would mean an improvement of the TUG result after vitamin D supplementation’.
On Page 10, under the Discussion section. The phrase ‘and even had a worsening effect on the TUG‐test results’ is incorrect and should be replaced with ‘but provided a small improvement to the TUG test’ hence the correct sentence should be:
‘The main finding of the quantitative meta‐analysis indicated that supplementation with vitamin D did not improve HGS (based on seven studies) to any significant extent but provided a small improvement to the TUG test (based on five studies)’.
On Page 11, second column, fourth paragraph. The ‘negative direction’ should be changed to ‘positive direction’. The correct sentence is as follows:
‘Although the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the TUG test suggested a positive direction by the reduced time used for the test, this result should be interpreted with caution because the meta‐analysis showed a high degree of heterogeneity that was not removed by excluding single studies’.
On Page 12, under the Strengths and limitations section. The word ‘deterioration’ must be replaced with ‘improvement’, thus the correct sentence should be:
‘We did find a small significant improvement of mobility. This is, however, based on a limited number of studies and participants’.
The authors apologize for the inconvenience caused.