Rerunnable from its own pages, this Unit 2 search strategy log for HS865 records databases, strings, yields and the reason each shielding study stayed or went. Searches like "hs 865 unit 2 assignment example", "hs865 unit 2 sample" and "hs865 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished HS865 Unit 2 search strategy log looks like
A two-page narrative sits in front of four tables. The narrative states the review question in PICo form, with registered radiographers as the population, routine gonadal shielding and its discontinuation as the phenomenon of interest, and diagnostic radiography after the 2019 AAPM position statement as the context. Two date windows are then justified: dose and image quality evidence from 2000 onward, practice and attitude studies from 2019 only. Table 1 lists PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science with the date searched and the exact string. Table 2 records limits, filters and hand searches of Radiologic Technology and Radiography. Table 3 is the synonym grid. Table 4 is the exclusion ledger, a reason beside every record removed at full text. A PRISMA 2020 flow diagram closes the log, counts bracketed throughout.
How a HS865 Unit 2 example is structured
Reproducibility is the standard, and the log is organized so each decision can be audited on its own. Strings are shown exactly as entered, including subject headings: MeSH in PubMed, CINAHL Headings in CINAHL and free text in Scopus, because one concept is indexed differently in each. Synonyms get their own grid, since gonad shield, contact shield, shadow shield, lead apron and patient shielding all appear in this literature and missing one would drop studies. Gray literature is logged the same way, covering the AAPM and NCRP statements, a joint UK guidance document from 2020 and state radiation control rules. Stopping is justified in writing: citation searching ended once two consecutive rounds returned only duplicates of records already held. The exclusion ledger assigns one reason per record from a fixed list, so two reviewers could apply it and reach matching counts.
A question with two clocks
Dose and image quality studies count from 2000 onward; practice and attitude studies start in 2019, when the AAPM statement changed what was being asked. The log explains why a single date limit would have served neither.
Strings as typed
Each database row reproduces the exact search, Boolean operators and truncation included. MeSH and CINAHL Headings sit beside free-text terms such as gonad* shield* and lead apron, with the yield recorded beside each run.
Synonyms that retrieve different studies
Contact shield, shadow shield, lead apron and patient shielding each pull different records. The grid shows which term found which studies, including [six] that no other term retrieved at all.
Gray literature, logged too
Professional statements, the UK joint guidance and state radiation rules are recorded with source, date accessed and reason for inclusion, since practice studies often name regulation as a reason shielding continues.
One reason per exclusion
Full-text exclusions draw on a fixed list: wrong population, wrong modality, no shielding outcome, commentary only, duplicate sample. One reason each keeps the flow diagram's counts reconciled from top to bottom.
Where marks go in HS865 Unit 2
Database names listed without the strings behind them leave a search nobody can repeat, and repetition is the whole purpose of the assignment. Synonyms missing from the search, contact shielding searched but lead apron omitted, leave the review open to the charge that studies were simply never found. One date limit applied to every question either floods the review with pre-2019 attitude surveys or drops the dose evidence the argument needs. Exclusions described in aggregate, [591] removed and no reasons given, prevent anyone from checking the judgment involved. Flow diagram counts that fail to add up draw immediate comment. Gray literature left out of a topic driven by professional statements and state rules is a visible hole. A search dated only by month, when databases update weekly, weakens the claim that it can be rerun.
Get a HS865 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Search logs differ by section: some want a table alone, others a narrative with a PRISMA 2020 diagram. Share the Unit 2 instructions, the rubric, your review question and any strings already tried. What returns is a log whose every search and exclusion another person could repeat, with bracketed yields left for your own runs. First custom sample free; 24-48h.
HS865 Unit 2 questions, answered
Why does the log use PICo rather than PICO?
PICO suits questions about interventions and outcomes. This review asks about a practice and why it persists, which is closer to a qualitative question, so population, phenomenon of interest and context fit better. The framework matters less than consistency: every term in each database string should map back to one of its elements, and the log should show that mapping.
Do search yields need to be exact?
They should be exactly what the database returned on the date searched, which is why that date sits beside every row. Numbers change as databases add records, so a rerun a month later will differ slightly. What must reconcile is the flow diagram: records identified, duplicates removed, screened, excluded and included should add up without a gap.
Should state radiation rules count as sources?
For this topic they do, because several practice studies report radiographers shielding partly because a state rule once required it. Recording which rules were checked, and whether each was revised after 2019, lets the review separate regulatory leftovers from habit. Your own topic may have an equivalent: policy documents that shape practice but never appear in a journal.