NURS 8710 Week 2 Search Strategy Record Example

Course	NURS 8710 Doctoral Seminar I
Week	Week 2
Paper type	Search strategy record
Length	About 1,050 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NURS 8710 Week 2

A Search Someone Else Could Rerun: The Recorded Strategy for Early Mobilization and Physical Function in Mechanically Ventilated Adults, Including the Version That Missed Three Known Trials

Student Name

College of Nursing, Walden University

NURS 8710: Doctoral Seminar I

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title promises reproducibility and admits the first version's failure, which tells a reader the document records what was actually run.

A Search Someone Else Could Rerun: The Recorded Strategy for Early Mobilization and Physical Function in Mechanically Ventilated Adults, Including the Version That Missed Three Known Trials

Question and Purpose

The review question asks whether, for ventilated adults in intensive care, early active mobilization, compared with usual care or a lower dose of mobilization, improve physical function at or after hospital discharge, and with what adverse events? This document records the search so that another person could run it and return with the same records. It gives the concept table, every string exactly as run, the count beside each step, the limits with a reason for each, a check against known trials and the arithmetic of identification and deduplication. Screening is not reported here, because the inclusion criteria will be piloted before any record is screened. The approach follows the reporting items for searches in PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., 2021) and the search guidance in the Cochrane Handbook (Lefebvre et al., 2023). Every string below was executed on the same day, October 4, 2026, so the counts can be compared.

Concept Table

Table 1 splits the question into three concepts. Comparison was not searched as a concept, because usual care is rarely named consistently in titles and abstracts.

Table 1

The Three Search Concepts With Their Headings and Free-Text Terms

Concept	PubMed subject headings	Free-text terms (title and abstract)	Truncation
Population: ventilated or critically ill adults	Respiration, Artificial; Critical Illness	mechanical ventilation; mechanically ventilated; critically ill; critical illness	None needed
Intervention: early mobilization and rehabilitation	Early Ambulation	mobili*; physical therapy; rehabilitation; cycle ergometer	mobili* captures both spellings of mobilization as well as mobility
Outcome: physical function	Physical Functional Performance	functional status; physical function; activities of daily living; six-minute walk; SF-36; functional independence; length of stay	None

Length of stay was added to the outcome block after the known-trial check described below, because two trials report function only as secondary outcomes and use length of stay in their abstracts.

PubMed

Strings are given exactly as entered. Population block: "Respiration, Artificial"[Mesh] OR "Critical Illness"[Mesh] OR "mechanical ventilation"[tiab] OR "mechanically ventilated"[tiab] OR "critically ill"[tiab] OR "critical illness"[tiab], 230,516 records. Combined with the intervention block, "Early Ambulation"[Mesh] OR mobili*[tiab] OR "physical therapy"[tiab] OR rehabilitation[tiab] OR "cycle ergometer"[tiab]: 5,669. Combined with the outcome block, "Physical Functional Performance"[Mesh] OR "functional status"[tiab] OR "physical function"[tiab] OR "activities of daily living"[tiab] OR "six-minute walk"[tiab] OR "SF-36"[tiab] OR "functional independence"[tiab] OR "length of stay"[tiab]: 1,123.

Limits as applied: adult[mh], to match the population; publication date 2006 through 2026, because the first trials of mobilization during ventilation appeared after 2006 and earlier work concerns post-ICU rehabilitation: 522. Design filter, randomized controlled trial[pt] OR "randomized"[tiab] OR "cohort"[tiab], so that controlled cohort studies are retained alongside trials: 245.

What this page is doingPrinting the full string beside each count lets a reader rerun every step and see which block did most of the narrowing.

Europe PMC

Europe PMC was searched because it indexes preprints, theses and some journals outside MEDLINE. Its field syntax differs, so the strings were translated rather than copied, and wildcards were used so that British and American spellings are both captured without listing them. Population: (TITLE_ABS:"mechanical ventilation" OR TITLE_ABS:"mechanically ventilated" OR TITLE_ABS:"critically ill" OR TITLE_ABS:"critical illness"). Intervention: (TITLE_ABS:mobili* OR TITLE_ABS:"physical therapy" OR TITLE_ABS:rehabilitation OR TITLE_ABS:"cycle ergometer"). Population AND intervention: 4,431. Adding the outcome block, using the same eight phrases as PubMed in TITLE_ABS fields: 932. Publication years 2006 to 2026: 906. Design terms (TITLE_ABS:randomi* OR TITLE_ABS:cohort): 429.

Europe PMC has no subject heading equivalent to the PubMed population and outcome headings, which is one reason its counts are not directly comparable with PubMed's. The wildcard on randomi* also retrieves records using words such as randomization in other senses, which inflates the count slightly but is cheaper to screen out than to miss a trial that spells the word the British way.

Trial Registry

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched through its public interface with the condition field set to mechanical ventilation and the intervention field to early mobilization OR rehabilitation OR physical therapy: 197 registered studies, of which 99 are marked completed. Registry records are kept separate from the bibliographic records and will be used to find completed trials without a publication, which is one way publication bias can be detected.

Known-Trial Check

Before accepting the strategy, it was tested against eleven trials and cohort studies already known to be relevant, identified from a published systematic review (Tipping et al., 2017) and from reading. The first version of the strategy, which lacked the Critical Illness heading, the phrase critical illness, functional independence and length of stay, retrieved 114 PubMed records and missed three of the eleven: a prospective cohort whose abstract reports length of stay rather than function, a trial whose population is described as having critical illness rather than as ventilated and a trial whose outcome is a functional independence measure. The blocks were revised as shown above, and the revised strategy retrieves all eleven. The check is reported because a search that misses known studies will also miss unknown ones of the same kind.

The check has a limit. Eleven known studies is a small test set, and they were found partly through one systematic review, so the strategy may share that review's blind spots. A second check against the reference lists of two further reviews is planned before screening ends.

What this page is doingReporting the failed first version, and exactly why it failed, is what makes the strategy trustworthy rather than merely complete-looking.

Identification and Deduplication

PubMed returned 245 records and Europe PMC 429. Matching on PubMed identifiers found 186 records in both, leaving 488 unique bibliographic records: 460 with PubMed identifiers and 28 without, of which 24 are preprints, 3 are conference abstracts and 1 is a dissertation. Preprints and abstracts will be retained through screening and checked for a later peer-reviewed version. The 99 completed registry entries are held separately.

CINAHL is planned as a third database, using CINAHL subject headings for mechanical ventilation, early ambulation and functional status, but was not run for this version because its strings must be built with that database's own headings. The record will be updated when it is.

Deduplication was done by identifier rather than by title, because titles in preprints and published versions often differ slightly. Records without an identifier were compared with the others by first author, year and the first six words of the title, and none matched. The full list of 488 records, with their source database, has been exported so that a second reviewer can screen from the same starting set.

References

Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Featherstone, R., Littlewood, A., Metzendorf, M.-I., Noel-Storr, A., Paynter, R., Rader, T., Thomas, J., & Wieland, L. S. (2023). Searching for and selecting studies. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Tipping, C. J., Harrold, M., Holland, A., Romero, L., Nisbet, T., & Hodgson, C. L. (2017). The effects of active mobilisation and rehabilitation in ICU on mortality and function: A systematic review. Intensive Care Medicine, 43(2), 171-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4612-0

NURS 8710 Week 2 instructions, in plain terms

Plan for the search assignment to be judged on whether a stranger could repeat it and get the same records. State the review question first. Break it into concepts and list, for each, the subject headings and free-text terms you used, with any truncation. Give each database its own block, printing each string exactly as entered beside the count it produced. Record limits as you applied them, with a reason for each. Test the strategy against a few studies you already know are relevant and report what happened, especially if it missed some. Finish with the arithmetic from records identified to unique records after deduplication, and name any database you have not yet searched.

Inside the NURS 8710 Week 2 example

A purpose section states the question, cites PRISMA 2020 and the Cochrane Handbook and gives the search date. Table 1 lists three concepts with headings, free-text terms and truncation, and a note explains why length of stay was added. The PubMed section prints three blocks and two limits with counts at each step. The Europe PMC section translates the strings into field syntax with wildcards, gives four counts and explains why its counts differ. A registry section reports 197 studies, 99 completed. The known-trial check describes the first version's three misses and why each occurred. The final section reports 186 duplicates, 488 unique records and how preprints and the planned CINAHL search will be handled.

Where the marks sit in the NURS 8710 Week 2 rubric

Search strategies are usually assessed on reproducibility, completeness, appropriateness of terms and limits and transparency about weaknesses. Faculty reward documents that print every string with its count, because that is what allows the search to be repeated. Credit rises when subject headings and free-text terms are combined deliberately for each concept. Limits earn marks when each carries a reason tied to the question. Testing the strategy against known studies, and reporting any misses, is often what distinguishes the strongest submissions. Clear deduplication arithmetic and an honest note on databases not yet searched complete the picture a grader is looking for.

Common NURS 8710 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Search records often describe the search in a sentence or two and give only a final total, which no one can reproduce. Others name a handful of search words but never show the Boolean logic or the fields they ran in. Some apply limits such as date or language without explaining why. Build your search in concept blocks and save the count after each block is added. Run the search on one day and write the date down. Check it against a handful of studies you know should appear, and revise the blocks if any are missing. Our writers can prepare a search strategy record for your review question, with strings, counts and a known-study check. Keep a copy of the exact strings, since even small changes alter the counts.

Get a NURS 8710 Week 2 example written to your instructions

Forward the search assignment, the databases your program expects and any recording form it distributes, and an example strategy built to that form comes back to you. The first custom one is free and arrives within 24 to 48 hours. Database credentials, and the saved history sitting behind them, are not something an example can carry for you.

More NURS 8710 papers and DNP samples

NURS 8710 Week 2 questions, answered

Why print the strings instead of describing them?

Because a description cannot be executed. The value of this document is that somebody else can paste each string into the same index and compare what comes back, which is impossible when the method says relevant terms were combined appropriately. Printing them also exposes errors early, since a misplaced operator is visible in a string and invisible in a paragraph about one.

How are decisions about limits defended?

By tying each one to the question rather than to workload. The example defends its date range on a practice change that makes earlier work less applicable, and its adult restriction on the population in the question itself. Limits defended by volume, meaning that the set was too large otherwise, are the ones faculty most often ask a candidate to revisit.

Where can I find a free NURS 8710 Week 2 sample paper?

The complete record, concept table, every string and the count beside it, is posted above and free to read.

What did the known-trial check in the NURS 8710 Week 2 search find?

The first version missed three of eleven relevant studies, so the population and outcome blocks were widened until the revised strategy retrieved all eleven.

How many unique records did the search produce?

PubMed returned 245 and Europe PMC 429; 186 appeared in both, leaving 488 unique records, with 99 completed registry entries held separately.