- Open Access
Erratum to: What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?
Systematic Reviews volume 4, Article number: 169 (2015)
The original article was published in Systematic Reviews 2015 4:104
After publication of  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.
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.
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0069-4.