Erratum to: What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies?
- Kath Wright1Email author,
- Su Golder2 and
- Kate Lewis-Light1
Published: 20 November 2015
The original article was published in Systematic Reviews 2015 4:104
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.
Notes
Declarations
Open AccessThis 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.
Authors’ Affiliations
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.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
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.