The authors regret that the Standard Deviation (SD) for those who failed their challenge (n = 19,693) was erroneously reported in the Abstract (page 1) and Table 2 of the Results section (page 6) as 3013 steps. The correct Standard Deviation that should have been reported there is 2993 steps. Furthermore, in the Results section under header 3.3 Exploratory Analyses (page 6) we erroneously state that exploratory analyses were performed on a subsample of 29,001 participants. The correct number that should have been reported there is 29,002 participants. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.</p
The authors regret there was an error in the figures reported in the methodology flow chart for heal...
A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this...
The authors regret that a few numbers in the tables had not been correctly displayed, which has now ...
The authors regret that the Standard Deviation (SD) for those who failed their challenge (n = 19,693...
The authors regret to inform that de-anonymisation of the study has failed in the publication. Secti...
The authors regret: The first line under section 2.4 Calculation of coordination and coordination va...
The authors regret the information for the funding of their paper was inadvertently left out of the ...
ERROR IN FIGURE In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The figure wa...
The values reported for the star excursion balance test (SEBT) in Table 2 on page 47 are incorrect. ...
The authors regret that affiliation b was incorrect in the published paper �Reliability of digital...
The authors regret that Michael H. J. Verhofstad was incorrectly affiliated to the University Medica...
This is a corrigendum for the article: Office workers' objectively assessed total and prolonged sitt...
The authors regret there was an error in the figures reported in the methodology flow chart for heal...
A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this...
The authors regret that a few numbers in the tables had not been correctly displayed, which has now ...
The authors regret that the Standard Deviation (SD) for those who failed their challenge (n = 19,693...
The authors regret to inform that de-anonymisation of the study has failed in the publication. Secti...
The authors regret: The first line under section 2.4 Calculation of coordination and coordination va...
The authors regret the information for the funding of their paper was inadvertently left out of the ...
ERROR IN FIGURE In the original article, there was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The figure wa...
The values reported for the star excursion balance test (SEBT) in Table 2 on page 47 are incorrect. ...
The authors regret that affiliation b was incorrect in the published paper �Reliability of digital...
The authors regret that Michael H. J. Verhofstad was incorrectly affiliated to the University Medica...
This is a corrigendum for the article: Office workers' objectively assessed total and prolonged sitt...
The authors regret there was an error in the figures reported in the methodology flow chart for heal...
A correction to this article has been published and is linked from the HTML and PDF versions of this...
The authors regret that a few numbers in the tables had not been correctly displayed, which has now ...