HS305 Unit 5 Database Search Log Example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Research Methods for Health Sciences Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

Every step from two databases to a final set of nine studies is recorded in the HS305 Unit 5 database search log, built for the sit-stand desk and low back pain question. Purdue Global HS 305 expects BS in Health Science students to search in a way another reader could repeat. The log separates the question into an exposure concept and an outcome concept, joins synonyms with OR and concepts with AND, and records each string with its date, limits and count in PubMed and CINAHL Complete. Duplicates are removed, then screening is logged at title, abstract and full text with the reason for each exclusion. A decisions section defends the ten-year limit and the four-week follow-up rule, and a hand search of reference lists adds one study.

CourseHS305 Research Methods for Health Sciences
UnitUnit 5
Paper typeDatabase search log
LengthAbout 600 words, 5 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Health Science
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for HS305 Unit 5

1

Two Databases, Two Concepts, Nine Studies: A Unit 5 Database Search Log for Sit-Stand Desks and Low Back Pain

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

HS305: Research Methods for Health Sciences

Unit 5 Database Search Log

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The search dates and counts are composite and shown as placeholders; the subject headings named are real, and the reporting and search guidance cited is real.

What this part is doingPromising that the search can be rerun states the standard the log must meet before any rows appear.
2

Concepts and Terms

The Unit 4 question has two searchable concepts. Concept A is the exposure: sit-stand, standing or height-adjustable desks, plus workstation interventions. Concept B is the outcome: low back pain. The population, desk workers, is left out of the search string because adding it would drop studies that describe the setting only in the full text. Terms within a concept are joined with OR; the two concepts are joined with AND, a structure recommended for building searches that are both complete and efficient (Bramer et al., 2018).

Search Rows

Row 1. Database: PubMed. Date run: [date]. String: ("Low Back Pain"[Mesh] OR "low back pain"[tiab] OR "lumbar pain"[tiab]) AND ("sit-stand"[tiab] OR "standing desk*"[tiab] OR "height-adjustable"[tiab] OR "sit-to-stand desk*"[tiab] OR "active workstation*"[tiab]). Limits: none. Results: [214].

Row 2. Database: PubMed. Same string. Limits: English, adults 19 and over, published in the last ten years. Results: [96].

Row 3. Database: CINAHL Complete. Date run: [date]. String: (MH "Low Back Pain" OR TI "low back pain" OR AB "low back pain") AND (TI ("sit-stand" OR "standing desk*" OR "height-adjustable") OR AB ("sit-stand" OR "standing desk*" OR "height-adjustable") OR MH "Ergonomics"). Limits: English, adults, last ten years, peer reviewed. Results: [58].

Row 4. Deduplication across rows 2 and 3 in a reference manager. Duplicates removed: [31]. Unique records: [123].

No subject heading exists for a sit-stand desk in either database, so that concept rests entirely on free-text words, and missing one synonym could miss a study.

What this part is doingFlagging the weakest concept shows the searcher knows where the search is most likely to fail.
3

Screening Summary

Titles screened: [123]. Excluded at title: [71], mostly studies of sitting time with no pain outcome, or of standing jobs such as retail. Abstracts screened: [52]. Excluded at abstract: [33]. Reasons: no back pain outcome [14]; not a desk intervention [9]; conference abstract only [6]; protocol without results [4]. Full texts read: [19]. Excluded at full text: [10]. Reasons: pain measured but not reported separately for the lower back [4]; follow-up under four weeks [3]; no comparison group [3]. Final set: [9].

Decisions and Their Reasons

Why limit to ten years? Sit-stand desks became common in offices only in the last decade, and earlier studies mostly tested treadmill or cycling desks, a different intervention. Why require four weeks of follow-up? Back pain varies from week to week, and a shorter study could not separate a real change from that variation. Why keep studies without randomization at the abstract stage? The design comparison in the next unit needs examples of several designs, so excluding them early would have hidden part of the evidence. Why exclude conference abstracts? They rarely report enough method to judge, and most of those found had later full papers already in the set. Each choice narrows the set for a stated reason, which is what separates a search strategy from a search that happened to stop.

Checks

Hand search: the reference lists of the [9] included studies and of a Cochrane review on reducing sitting at work (Shrestha et al., 2018) were checked; [1] additional study was found and is counted in the full-text stage. The counts above follow the stages of a standard flow diagram which lets a reader follow every record from retrieval to its final decision (Page et al., 2021).

What this part is doingTying the counts to the flow diagram's stages shows the log is ready to become a figure in the final proposal.
4

References

Bramer, W. M., de Jonge, G. B., Rethlefsen, M. L., Mast, F., & Kleijnen, J. (2018). A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 531-541. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283

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, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Shrestha, N., Kukkonen-Harjula, K. T., Verbeek, J. H., Ijaz, S., Hermans, V., & Pedisic, Z. (2018). Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(12), CD010912. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010912.pub5

Reading the HS 305 Unit 5 instructions

The fifth unit usually asks you to search at least two library databases for your question and document the process so it could be reproduced. Logs often run two to three pages and may be a table or a structured list. Instructors look for search terms grouped by concept, subject headings used where the database has them, Boolean operators applied correctly, limits stated, and a hit count recorded for every row. Many sections also ask you to record how you screened the results and why studies were excluded, which turns a list of hits into a defensible source set. Date each search, explain any limit you applied, and cite a source on systematic searching or on reporting the flow of records.

How this HS305 Unit 5 example is built

The log starts with the two concepts and the reason the population was left out of the string. Four numbered rows record the PubMed search with and without limits, the CINAHL search with its own field tags and subject heading, and the deduplication step, each with a count. The highlighted sentence notes that neither database has a subject heading for a sit-stand desk, so that concept depends entirely on free-text synonyms. A screening summary follows records from titles to abstracts to full texts with exclusion counts and grouped reasons. Three decisions are explained as questions and answers: the ten-year window, the four-week minimum and keeping nonrandomized studies through screening. A final checks section describes the hand search and ties the counts to the PRISMA flow stages.

Where the points sit in the HS305 Unit 5 rubric

Search logs are commonly marked on reproducibility, search construction, screening documentation, justification of decisions and presentation. Reproducibility usually carries the largest share, because the purpose of a log is that someone else could run the same search and reach the same set. Construction credit goes to concepts grouped correctly, synonyms joined with OR, concepts joined with AND and subject headings used where available. Screening documentation rewards a tally at every screening stage plus the reason each record was dropped. Decisions earn points when each limit has a reason tied to the question rather than convenience. Presentation includes dates, database names and a citation for the method followed. A log missing result counts tends to lose more marks than one with a slightly imperfect string.

HS305 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points

A frequent error is logging only the final search, so a grader cannot see how the set was reached. Another is joining every term with AND, which shrinks results to almost nothing, or joining concepts with OR, which floods them. Some students apply limits such as full text only without saying why, and a full text limit removes studies simply because the library lacks access, not because they are off topic. Others record no exclusion reasons at all. Forgetting the date matters because databases change. If your question uses a different exposure or outcome, or your section requires a third database, send the question and we can help you build concept groups, strings and a log someone could actually rerun.

Get an HS305 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Your Unit 5 research question and the databases the course names are the two inputs that shape a search log; the rubric is the third. Strings appear as typed, limits carry reasons and exclusions are counted from first results to final set. No charge applies to the first custom sample, which takes 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All HS305 units Finished samples

More HS305 papers and BS in Health Science samples

HS305 Unit 5 questions, answered

What is the difference between MeSH and CINAHL Subject Headings?

Both are controlled vocabularies that index articles by concept regardless of the words authors used. MeSH is maintained for PubMed and MEDLINE; CINAHL Subject Headings serve the nursing and allied health literature in CINAHL and often use different terms for the same idea. A search log that uses each database's own vocabulary shows the searcher understood that difference.

How many studies should the final set contain?

Whatever the screening honestly produces, within the range your assignment sets. A log that ends with 9 studies is not better or worse than one ending with 15; what matters is that each exclusion has a reason and the numbers add up. If a search yields too few, the log records how it was widened rather than quietly adding sources from elsewhere.

Should Google Scholar appear in the log?

Some sections allow it as a supplementary source, and a log can list it alongside a caution about its limits: results cannot be exported reliably, the ranking is opaque and the same search can return different counts on different days. Most HS305 assignments expect the library databases first. The sample records only PubMed and CINAHL and says so in its closing note.

Where can I find a free HS305 Unit 5 sample paper?

You can read the whole Unit 5 database search log here, from concept groups to a final set of nine studies on sit-stand desks.

Why leave the population out of the search string?

Adding it can drop studies that describe their setting only in the full text. Population is easier to apply during screening, where the reader can see the whole abstract.