European Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 176, Issue 5, pp 681–682 | Cite as

Erratum to: Therapeutic clowns in pediatrics: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Erratum

Erratum to: Eur J Pediatr (2016) 175:1353–1360

DOI 10.1007/s00431-016-2764-0

The original version of this article unfortunately contained errors. The errors are enumerated below:

Place

Original text

To be replaced with

Abstract (Page 1/10)

A total of 19 studies were found eligible to be included in the systematic review and 16 for meta-analysis.

A total of 18 studies were found eligible to be included in the systematic review and 15 for meta-analysis.

Results – First paragraph (Page 5/10)

A total of 91 studies were obtained from the electronic databases of which finally 19 [1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15–7, 19–2, 25, 29, 30, 41–43, 48] were found eligible to be included.

A total of 91 studies were obtained from the electronic databases of which finally 18 [1, 6, 8, 12, 14–6, 18–1, 24, 28, 29, 40–42, 47] were found eligible to be included.

Results – First paragraph (Page 6/10)

Of the 19 studies, three [9, 21, 25] did not report the outcome measures appropriately to be included in the quantitative synthesis

Of the 18 studies, three [8, 20, 24] did not report the outcome measures appropriately to be included in the quantitative synthesis

Results – First paragraph (Page 6/10)

Hence, a total of 16 studies were included for the final meta-analysis.

Hence, a total of 15 studies were included for the final meta-analysis.

Results – Second last paragraph (page 7/10)

Number of children requiring the use of anxiolytics Two studies in a total of 522 children reported the total number of children requiring the use of anxiolytics. The pooled relative risk was found to be 0.47 [0.15, 1.53] and was not statistically significant (Fig. 8)

This paragraph has to be removed.

Results – Last paragraph (Page 7/10)

Only one of the studies reported the time taken for induction of anesthesia, number of parents satisfied with the given care, number of interruptions by the healthcare staff and number of parents with anxiety, thus could not be used for the meta-analysis.

Only one of the studies reported the time taken for induction of anesthesia, number of parents satisfied with the given care, number of interruptions by the healthcare staff, number of children using anxiolytic drugs and number of parents with anxiety, thus could not be used for the meta-analysis.

Results – Figure 8 (Page 8/10)

Figure 8

Figure 8 to be removed

References

 

Reference number 3 to be removed. References 1 and 2 remain the same. The references to be re-ordered as follows:

4-3; 5-4; 6-5; 7-6; 8-7; 9-8; 10-9; 11-10; 12-11; 13-12; 14-13; 15-14; 16-15; 17-16; 18-17; 19-18; 20-19; 21-20; 22-21; 23-22; 24-23; 25-24; 26-25; 27-26; 28-27; 29-28; 30-29; 31-30; 32-31; 33-32; 34-33; 35-34; 36-35; 37-36; 38-37; 39-38; 40-39; 41-40; 42-41; 43-42; 44-43; 45-44; 46-45; 47-46; 48-47.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health SciencesFiji National UniversitySuvaFiji
  2. 2.Department of Oral Health, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health SciencesFiji National UniversitySuvaFiji

Personalised recommendations