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
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
About this article
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
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0128-x