In Charlier et al 2016, Serious games for improving knowledge and self-management in young people with chronic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Volume 23, Issue 1, 1 January 2016, Pages 230–239, some small errors in the sample sizes occurred in Figure 2 and 3.
Figure 2:
Effect size estimates for the effectiveness of games on knowledge of young people with chronic conditions. Plots symbols for the study-specific estimates are proportional to the (square root of the) number of subjects. CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3:
Effect size estimates for the effectiveness of games on self-management of young people with chronic conditions. Plots symbols for the study-specific estimates are proportional to the (square root of the) number of subjects. CI: confidence interval.
Figures 2 and 3: Rubin et al, 1986: The sample size of the game group should be 29 instead of 30
Figures 2 and 3: Rubin et al, 1986: The sample size of the control group should be 25 instead of 24
Figure 2: Bartholomew et al, 2000: The sample size of the control group should be 62 instead of 63
Figure 3: Bartholomew et al, 2000: The sample size of the game group should be 69 instead of 70
This resulted in small changes in the Hedges g and the 95% confidence intervals. However, the overall estimates remained unchanged, indicating that the findings of the meta-analysis and the conclusions were correct.
The corrected figures are provided below.