Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeCorrection to article: posted by study authors
Posted by ddumuid on 09 Aug 2023 at 05:29 GMT
We have submitted a correction request to PLOSONE, however as there is some time lag while they review the request, they suggested we post a summary of the error and the correction here as a comment. Fully corrected documents have been provided to PLOSONE journal editors.
""Description of error:"" This paper uses data from the CheckPoint module of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children. The July 2021 CheckPoint Data Issues Paper (doi: . https://doi.org/10.25374/...) describes an error in how children’s accelerometry data were processed. In short, incorrect cut-points were used when determining time spent in sedentary behaviour, light physical activity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Consequently, the original variables overestimated sedentary time and underestimated light physical activity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). The accelerometry data have been reprocessed with the correct cut-points. New, corrected accelerometry variables have been issued. We have repeated the analyses in this paper using the new accelerometry variables.
""How do the error(s) affect the results, conclusions, and overall scientific understanding of your study?"" The effect of using the correct cut-points is that sedentary time has decreased and the activity variables (light and MVPA) have increased (See descriptive statistics in corrected Table 1). On average, sedentary time has decreased from 685 min/d (original compositional mean) to 560 min/d (corrected). Light physical activity has increased from 160 min/d to 250 min/d, and MVPA has increased from 20 min/d to 53 min/d.
The new variables are very highly correlated with the original variables. Thus, although point estimates have changed, the overall message of the paper is the same. All models that were statistically significant in the original paper remain statistically significant when using the corrected variables. The directions of associations between activity variables and outcomes remain the same (see new Figure 2 and new Supplementary File 2). As in the original paper, optimal time use continues to differ for fitness and adiposity. As before, optimal compositions for both outcomes maximize MVPA and minimize sedentary time. As before, days for optimal fitness have higher light physical activity and shorter sleep compared to days for optimal adiposity (see new Figure 3, and new Supplementary File 3). However, the durations have changed (see corrected Table 2 for new optimal durations for fitness and adiposity). Balancing both fitness and adiposity outcomes, the overall optimal time-use composition is now: 9.9 [8.6; 10.8] h sleep, 9.6 [8.2: 11.2] h sedentary time, 1.9 [1.5; 2.3] h light physical activity and 2.6 [2.5; 2.7] h MVPA.
NB. An additional 3 participants were included in the new analyses as their accelerometry data now meet validity criteria (their updated sedentary time is now under the cut-off threshold). This means that most of the descriptive statistics in the new Table 1 have changed, but only very slightly.