Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

Systematic Reviews volume 4, Article number: 169 (2015) Cite this article

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. 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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
    • Kath Wright
    •  & Kate Lewis-Light
  2. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
    • Su Golder
Authors
  1. Search for Kath Wright in:
  2. Search for Su Golder in:
  3. Search for Kate Lewis-Light in:

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

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

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053