Correction to “Effectiveness of a School Drinking Water Promotion and Access Program for Overweight Prevention”

Patel AI, Schmidt LA, McCulloch CE, et al. Effectiveness of a School Drinking Water Promotion and Access Program for Overweight Prevention. Pediatrics. 2023;152(3):e2022060021The authors note that “During a recent secondary analysis of data from this cluster-randomized trial, our team identified an error in the calculation of values for sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), one of the secondary outcomes for the study. A thorough review of all the data was conducted, with independent analyses performed by both the study Principal Investigator and a biostatistician from Stanford’s Quantitative Sciences Unit using Stata and R, respectively, along with guidance from the study’s senior biostatistician and the co-authors.The analyses revealed no significant discrepancies in Tables 1 and 2 of this published study. However, differences in descriptive values for SSBs were noted in Table 3, specifically in the values reported for caloric content (kcal) and frequency of consumption (times/day). We also re-ran all the models with corrected SSB kcal and SSB frequency outcome data.For the sensitivity analysis, Projected Analyses to Address COVID-19 Pandemic Interruptions, provided in the Supplementary Information, the change in SSB frequency per day from baseline to 7 months was no longer significant (p-value: 0.09 instead of 0.025).”The online version of this article has been corrected.On page 5, the text read:“At 7 months, there was a greater decreased change in the frequency of SSBs consumed in intervention students (–1.1 time per day) compared to control students (–0.7 time per day) that did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percent difference in change: –8.0% CI: –15.7 to 0.4). Sensitivity analyses based on the projected full sample suggested a statistically significant reduction in change in frequency of SSB intake between intervention and control students from baseline to 7-months that did not persist at 15-months (Supplemental Table 5).”This should have read:“At 7 months, there was a greater decreased change in the frequency of SSBs consumed in intervention students (–0.5 time per day) compared to control students (–0.3 time per day) that did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percent difference in change: −5.0% −11.5 to 2.0).Sensitivity analyses based on the projected full sample suggested a reduction in change in frequency of SSB intake between intervention and control students from baseline to 7 months. However, this change was not statistically significant (Supplemental Table 5).”On page 6, the text read:“The Water First program also changed secondary outcomes in some expected directions. Although statistical power was limited because of pandemic school closures, sensitivity analyses suggested that increases in the frequency of water consumed at 7- and 15-months could have led to reductions in SSB consumption in a fully powered sample.”This should have read:“The Water First program also changed some secondary outcomes in some expected directions. Although statistical power was limited because of pandemic school closures, sensitivity analyses suggested that there were increases in the frequency of water consumed at 7 and 15 months.”A corrected Table 3 is included here.A corrected Supplemental Table 5 is included here.