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.
What a finished MN504 Unit 3 database search log looks like
The log fills four pages. Its header gives the PICOT question from Unit 2, the date of each search and the interface used, EBSCOhost for CINAHL and the NLM site for PubMed. The search histories follow as tables. Each row holds a line number, the string exactly as entered, the fields searched and the count. S1 pairs chlorhexidine as a subject heading with the same word as free text; S2 does likewise for bathing, basin bath and cloth bath. Central lines and bloodstream infection take S3 and S4, S5 and S6 join the blocks with AND, and S7 applies limits: 2014 onward, English, adults, peer reviewed. A screening tally, from [612] combined records to [9] kept, closes the log, with exclusion reasons counted rather than summarized.
How a 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.
Date, platform, question
The header fixes when each database was searched and through which interface, because counts drift with both, and restates the Unit 2 question word for word.
Headings beside free text
Every concept line joins an indexed subject heading to plain-language synonyms with OR, catching both older indexed records and recent unindexed ones.
Limits on a line of their own
Years, language, age group and peer review are applied last, in one visible row, so their effect on the count can be read directly.
A tally with reasons counted
Duplicates, wrong population, no bathing arm and no infection outcome each carry a number, and the numbers add up to the drop from [612] to [9].
The nine-day rerun
Repeating both strings later and explaining the [three] extra records demonstrates that the log would let a stranger reproduce the work.
Where marks go in MN504 Unit 3
A paragraph saying that relevant databases were searched with appropriate keywords is not a log, and it earns little here, since nothing in it can be checked or repeated. Missing counts at each line hide where the set narrowed and whether a limit quietly removed good studies. Subject headings left out entirely suggest keywords alone, which miss indexed synonyms; headings used alone miss the newest records. Boolean slips, OR where AND belonged, show up as implausible counts and draw comment. A screening total that does not add up, [612] in and [9] out with no arithmetic between, is marked down under many rubrics. Search dates and platform names are small items, yet leaving them out draws deductions, because counts cannot be interpreted without them. Exclusion reasons given as a single phrase, not relevant, also read as unfinished work.
Get a 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.
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.