MN504 Unit 3 database search log example

Reviewed by Elspeth Marlowe, MSN, RN Evidence-Based Practice Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This page holds a complete MN504 Unit 3 database search log example in true form. Seven numbered lines in CINAHL, six in PubMed and a pass through the Cochrane Library record exact syntax and counts for the chlorhexidine bathing PICOT question, a screening tally takes 612 records to 9 with every exclusion counted, and a repeat run nine days later is logged beside the first to show the search holds. Most sections set this unit as a search log.

What this page holds

Could another nurse rerun this search and land on the same studies? MN504's Unit 3 database search log is built so the answer is yes, line by line. Searches like "mn 504 unit 3 assignment example", "mn504 unit 3 sample" and "mn504 unit 3 example" land here.

1

Database Search Log: Chlorhexidine Cloth Bathing and Line-Related Bloodstream Infection in Adult Inpatients

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MN504: Evidence-Based Practice

Unit 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Search counts are illustrative figures for a model document and will differ on any real run.

What this part is doingThe title names the document and the question it serves. A search log is judged on whether someone else could repeat it, so the title page signals precision rather than narrative.
2

Header

PICOT question (from Unit 2), in brief: P, adults with central venous catheters on the inpatient oncology unit; I, once-daily 2% chlorhexidine cloths; C, soap-and-water basin baths; O, the line infection rate per 1,000 catheter days; T, six months.

Search dates: first run September 8, 2026; repeat run September 17, 2026. Interfaces: CINAHL Complete through EBSCOhost; PubMed through the National Library of Medicine website; Cochrane Library through Wiley.

Method note: within each concept, a subject heading is paired with free-text terms. Subject headings capture indexed articles regardless of the words authors used; free text captures recent records not yet indexed. Concept blocks are combined only at the end so that the effect of each block is visible, and limits are applied on a separate line (Lefebvre et al., 2023).

What this part is doingDates and interfaces come first because the same strings return different counts on different platforms and days. The method note states the reason for pairing headings with free text once, instead of in every row.
3

CINAHL (EBSCOhost), September 8, 2026

S1. (MH "Chlorhexidine") OR chlorhexidine. Fields: subject heading, all text. Count: 3,912. S2. (MH "Baths") OR bath* OR "basin bath*" OR "cloth bath*". Count: 41,208. S3. (MH "Catheterization, Central Venous+") OR "central line*" OR "central venous catheter*" OR "implanted port*". Count: 28,660. S4. (MH "Catheter-Related Infections") OR "bloodstream infection*" OR CLABSI. Count: 9,845. S5. S1 AND S3 AND S4. Count: 2,140. S6. S5 AND S2. Count: 388. S7. S6, limits: published 2014 to 2026, English, all adult, peer reviewed. Count: 214.

PubMed, September 8, 2026

#1. "Chlorhexidine"[Mesh] OR chlorhexidine[tiab]. Count: 16,540. #2. "Baths"[Mesh] OR bath*[tiab] OR "cloth bath*"[tiab]. Count: 28,110. #3. "Central Venous Catheters"[Mesh] OR "central line*"[tiab] OR "central venous catheter*"[tiab] OR "implanted port*"[tiab]. Count: 34,902. #4. "Catheter-Related Infections"[Mesh] OR "bloodstream infection*"[tiab] OR CLABSI[tiab]. Count: 21,377. #5. #1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4. Count: 519. #6. #5, filters: 2014 to 2026, English, adult 19+ years. Count: 386.

PubMed runs one line shorter than CINAHL because it offers no peer-review limit; the difference is recorded rather than hidden. The bathing block did the most narrowing in both databases, cutting 2,140 CINAHL records to 388, which shows it is the concept that defines this question.

Cochrane Library, September 8, 2026

Search: chlorhexidine AND bath* in title, abstract or keywords. Results: 2 Cochrane reviews and 10 trials in the Central Register of Controlled Trials, 12 records in total.

What this part is doingEach row gives the line number, the string exactly as entered, the fields and the count, so a reader can see where the set narrowed.
4

Screening Tally

Records identified: CINAHL 214, PubMed 386, Cochrane 12, total 612. Duplicates removed: 171. Records screened by title and abstract: 441.

Excluded at title and abstract: 398. Reasons: bathing was not the intervention, 162; pediatric or neonatal population, 71; no bloodstream infection outcome, 94; commentary, letter or editorial, 71.

Full texts assessed: 43. Excluded at full text: 34. Reasons: no data for patients with central lines, 13; duplicate report of an included cohort, 6; conference abstract only, 9; outcome not defined by surveillance criteria, 6.

Studies included: 9. The tally follows the flow structure recommended for reporting searches, so each number can be traced from the one before it (Page et al., 2021).

What this part is doingExclusion reasons are counted rather than summarized, and the arithmetic adds up at each stage: 441 minus 398 is 43, and 43 minus 34 is 9. A tally that did not add up would undermine the whole log.
5

Repeat Run, September 17, 2026

CINAHL S7: 216 (2 new records, both published September 2026). PubMed #6: 387 (1 new record, published September 2026). Cochrane: 12 (no change). The three new records were screened by the same criteria; none met inclusion. The small, explained difference between runs indicates the strings work as written and that the search can be updated before the synthesis in Unit 7 (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023).

What this part is doingThe rerun shows the search is reproducible. Explaining each new record as a recent publication tells a reader the difference comes from the literature, not from the strings.
6

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). Chapter 4: 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. https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2023). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.

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

How this MN504 Unit 3 example is structured

Reproducibility organizes every choice. Dates and interfaces come first because the same words return different counts on different platforms and on different days. Subject headings and free text are paired inside each concept, since headings catch indexed articles and free text catches recent ones not yet indexed; the log states that reason once rather than in every row. Blocks are combined only at the end, so a reader can see which concept narrowed the set most, and here it is bathing, which cut 2,140 records to 388. PubMed runs one line shorter because it offers no peer-review limit, a difference the log notes rather than hides. The Cochrane Library pass is recorded separately, returning two reviews. A repeat run nine days on adds three records, all new publications, and that small, explained gap is what persuades a reader the strings work as written.

Get an MN504 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Share your PICOT question, a list of the databases you can reach through the library, and the Unit 3 instructions and rubric. A numbered log returns with exact strings, bracketed counts where your own run will set the figures, and a screening tally that adds up. The first custom sample is free and 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 MN504 units Finished samples

MN504 Unit 3 questions, answered

Which databases should an MN504 search log include?

CINAHL and PubMed are the usual pair for nursing questions, since CINAHL indexes nursing journals PubMed may miss and PubMed covers the wider biomedical literature. The Cochrane Library adds systematic reviews. Some prompts require a set number of databases; where none is stated, two major databases plus a review source is a common and defensible choice.

Why do my counts differ from the sample's?

Because databases grow daily and each library licenses slightly different versions and interfaces. The sample brackets its counts for exactly that reason; the figures in a submitted log have to come from the student's own run on the date recorded. What should match is the logic, the concept blocks, headings and limits, not the numbers themselves.

Should the log keep searches that returned nothing useful?

Yes. A string that returned few or irrelevant records, then was revised, belongs in the log with a line saying what changed. It shows the reader why the final strings look as they do, and it protects against the impression that the first attempt was the only one. Dropping abandoned attempts is a frequent reason a log cannot be followed by anyone else.