Corrigendum to “Effects of line dancing and flexibility training on chronic non-specific low back pain among college students: A randomized controlled trial”(Complementary Therapies in Medicine, (2026), 98, C, (103346), (S0965229926000294), 10.1016/j.ctim.2026.103346)

The authors regret the following errors in the published article: 1. Affiliation correction: The first author’s affiliation was typeset incorrectly due to a missing word. Specifically, the word “and” was omitted between “Health” and “Physical Education.” The correct affiliation should read: Department of Health and Physical Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Tai Po, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region . 2. Statistical reporting correction: In the Results section, all reported F-values were presented with superscript numbers, which was inappropriate. More importantly, the degrees of freedom were incorrectly typeset. For example, values such as “F^28,33” were printed, but the correct values should be “F_{[1, 64]}” (with numerator df = 1 and denominator df = 64). These errors affected multiple places in the Results section. The entire text has been revised to reflect the accurate degrees of freedom and the correct statistical notation,F(df1,df2), in line with standard reporting conventions. In addition, several reported Cohen’sdeffect sizes were inaccurate, and they have now been corrected. I have already replaced the incorrect values with the corrected ones in the revised Results section provided below. The details are as follows. 3.2 Treatment results 3.2.1 Pain intensity ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 56.40, p < .001, ƞ_p² = .468) and the time*group interaction effect (F_{[2, 64]} = 7.93, p < .001, ƞ_p² = .198) on pain intensity, while the main effect of group was not significant (F_{[2, 64]} = 3.10, p = .052, ƞ_p² = .088). Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 3) revealed significant reductions in pain intensity from pretest to posttest in both the LD-B (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.85) and FT (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.45) groups. Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. Both the LD-B group (2.91 ± 1.35) and the FT group (2.96 ± 1.37) scored significantly lower than the control group (4.30 ± 0.73; p < .001), with large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.29 and 1.23, respectively). No significant difference in pain intensity was observed between the LD-B and FT groups (p > .05, Cohen's d = 0.04). 3.2.2 Functional disability ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 41.95, p < .001, ƞ_p² = .396), group (F_{[2, 64]} = 3.89, p = .025, ƞ_p² = .108) and time*group (F_{[2, 64]} = 4.49, p = .015, ƞ_p² = .123) on functional disability. Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 4) revealed significant reductions in functional disability from pretest to posttest in both the LD-B (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.29) and FT (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.59) groups. Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. Both the LD-B group (7.74 ± 2.83) and the FT group (6.75 ± 3.15) scored significantly lower than the control group (10.15 ± 3.57; p = .002–.047), with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 0.75 and 1.01, respectively). No significant difference was observed between the LD-B and FT groups (p = .872, Cohen's d = 0.33). 3.2.3 Dynamic balance (1) Right Leg ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 24.81, p < .001, η_p² = .279) and time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} = 9.334, p < .001, ƞ_p² = .226) on dynamic balance in the right leg, while the main effect of group was not significant (F_{[2, 64]} = 2.394, p = .099, η_p² = .070). Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 5) revealed significant improvements in dynamic balance (right leg) from pretest to posttest in both the LD-B (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.07) and FT (p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.69) groups. Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. Both the LD-B group (92.27 ± 6.61) and the FT group (90.01 ± 5.33) scored significantly lower than the control group (85.55 ± 3.87; p = .001 and .027, respectively ), with medium to large effect sizes (Cohen's d = 1.24 and 0.96, respectively). No significant difference was observed between the LD-B and FT groups (p = .475, Cohen's d = 0.38). (2) Left Leg ANOVA revealed a statistically significant effect of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 53.80, p < .001, η_p² = .457) and time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} = 4.753, p = .012, η_p² = .129) on dynamic balance in the left leg, while the main effect of group was not significant (F_{[2, 64]} = 0.908, p = .408, η_p² = .028). Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 6) revealed significant improvements in dynamic balance (left leg) from pretest to posttest in both the LD-B (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.11) and FT (p < .001, Cohen's d = 0.92) groups. Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. The LD-B group (91.78 ± 5.06) scored significantly higher than the control group did (87.71 ± 5.42; p = .032; Cohen's d = 0.78). The FT group (90.12 ± 4.76) did not differ significantly from either the LD-B group (p = .800, Cohen's d = 0.34) or the control group (p = .363, Cohen's d = 0.47). 3.3 Psychosocial results 3.3.1 Affective status (1) Positive affect ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 49.58, p < .001, η_p² = .437) and group (F_{[2, 64]} = 34.09, p < .001, η_p² = .516) as well as the time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} =32.42, p < .001, η_p² = .503) on positive affect. Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 7) revealed significant improvements in positive affect from pretest to posttest in both the LD-B (p < .001, Cohen's d = 2.80) and FT (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.53) groups. Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. The LD-B group (37.61 ± 3.86) scored significantly higher than both the FT (32.37 ± 3.67; p < .001; Cohen's d = 1.39) and control (22.15 ± 4.72; p < .001; Cohen's d = 3.55) groups did. The FT group also scored significantly higher than the control group did (p < .001, Cohen's d = 2.41). (2) Negative affect ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 58.60, p < .001, η_p² = .478), group (F_{[2, 64]} = 22.19, p < .001, η_p² = .410) and the time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} = 26.42, p < .001, η_p² = .452) on negative affect. Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 8) revealed significant improvements in negative affect from pretest to posttest in both the LD-B (p < .001, Cohen's d = -3.13) and FT (p < .001, Cohen's d = -1.67) groups. Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. The LD-B group (20.08 ± 3.03) scored significantly lower than both the FT (26.12 ± 3.28; p < .001; Cohen's d = 1.91) and control (33.65 ± 5.57; p < .001; Cohen's d = 3.11) groups did. The FT group also scored significantly lower than the control group did (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.65). 3.3.2 Quality of life (1) Physical component summary (PCS) ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of the time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} = 4.36, p = .017, η_p² = .120) and group (F_{[2, 64]} = 7.67, p < .001, η_p² = .193) on the physical component summary scores, whereas the main effect of time was not significant (F_{[1, 64]} = 1.37, p = .247, η_p² = .021). Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 9) revealed significant improvements in the physical component summary score from the pretest to the posttest in the FT group (p = .007, Cohen's d = 0.83). In contrast, the LD-B group showed a nonsignificant increase (p = .399, Cohen's d = 0.22). Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. The FT group (46.21 ± 4.75) scored significantly higher than both the LD-B (41.88 ± 7.44; p = .026; Cohen's d = 0.71) and control (37.47 ± 3.14; p < .001; Cohen's d = 2.23) groups did. The LD-B group also scored significantly higher than the control group did (p = .041, Cohen's d = 0.79). (2) Mental component summary (MCS) ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of time (F_{[1, 64]} = 7.40 p = .008, η_p² = .104), group (F_{[2, 64]} = 6.59, p = .003, η_p² = .171) and the time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} =6.13, p = .004, η_p² = .161) on mental component summary scores. Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 10) revealed significant improvements in mental component summary from pretest to posttest in the FT group (p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.27). In contrast, the FT group showed a non-significant increase (p = .298, Cohen's d = 0.33). Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. The LD-B group (46.05 ± 5.34) scored significantly higher than both the FT group (39.06 ± 8.37; p = .009; Cohen's d = 0.90) and the control group (34.43 ± 9.08; p < .001; Cohen's d = 1.45). 3.3.3 Social support ANOVA revealed statistically significant effects of the time*group interaction (F_{[2, 64]} = 10.99, p < .001, ƞ_p² = .256) and group (F_{[2, 64]} = 8.65, p < .001, η_p² = .213) on social support, while the main effect of time was not significant (F_{[1, 64]} =0.469, p = .496, ƞ_p² = .007). Further simple effect analysis (Fig. 11) revealed significant improvements in social support from pretest to posttest in the LD-B group (p = .002, Cohen's d = 0.98). In contrast, the FT group showed a non-significant decrease (p = .288, Cohen's d = -0.31). Posttest scores also differed significantly across groups. The LD-B group (38.30 ± 5.07) scored significantly higher than both the FT group (34.46 ± 4.71; p = .012; Cohen's d = 0.79) and the control group (30.20 ± 3.00; p < .001; Cohen's d = 1.93). The FT group also scored higher than the control group did (p = .007, Cohen's d = 1.07). The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.