Skip to main content

Erratum to: What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?

The Original Article was published on 26 June 2015

Erratum

After publication of [1] it came to the authors’ attention that three percentage (%) symbols were missed upon publication of their manuscript. The incorrect statement present in the Abstract and Results is “The median number of unique studies was 9.09; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0 to the highest value of 33.0”. The correct statement is “The median % of unique studies was 9.09%; while the range had a lowest value of 5.0% to the highest value of 33.0%”. This has been updated in the original article.

References

  1. Wright K, Golder S, Lewis-Light K. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Systematic Reviews. 2015;4:104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kath Wright.

Additional information

The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0069-4.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wright, K., Golder, S. & Lewis-Light, K. Erratum to: What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?. Syst Rev 4, 169 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0128-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0128-x