NU298 Unit 3 Capstone Literature Search Summary Example

Course	NU298 Capstone
Unit	Unit 3
Paper type	Literature search summary
Length	About 580 words, 5 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	BSN (prelicensure)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NU298 Unit 3

From 386 Records to 11 Sources: A Capstone Literature Search Summary on Unnecessary Fasting Orders for Hospitalized Adults, With Terms, Limits, Screening Counts and the Evidence Levels the Remainder Earned

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

NU298: Capstone

Unit 3 Literature Search Summary

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The search counts are composite and bracketed; database names, subject headings and the leveling system are real, and a reader should rerun the search before relying on the counts.

What this part is doingEvery number between the first search and the final set is accounted for, so another student could rerun the search and compare.

Question Searched

In adult medical inpatients awaiting procedures, what are the extent and effects of prolonged fasting, and do shortened clear-liquid fasts or confirmation of procedure times reduce fasting without increasing aspiration or delays?

Databases and Dates

CINAHL Complete and PubMed, searched [month, year], limited to English and to publications from [2010] to the search date, with older landmark sources added by hand.

Terms

Subject headings: Fasting (both databases) and Preoperative Care (CINAHL). Keywords: "nil per os" OR NPO OR "nothing by mouth" OR "nil by mouth"; "fasting time" OR "fasting duration"; "clear liquids" OR "clear fluids"; inpatient* OR hospitali*. Headings and keywords were combined with OR within each concept and AND between concepts, because headings alone missed recent studies not yet indexed.

Counts

Records found: [386] (CINAHL [142], PubMed [244]). Duplicates removed: [74]. Titles and abstracts screened: [312]; excluded [281]. Full texts read: [31]; excluded [20]. Included: [11]. Reasons for exclusion at full text: pediatric only [7], diet or intermittent fasting for weight loss [5], obstetric labor [3], no fasting duration measured [3], conference abstract only [2]. The reporting follows the flow recommended for systematic searches, so the path from records to included sources can be checked (Page et al., 2021).

The search was built so that a classmate could rerun it on Monday and arrive at the same eleven papers or find out why not.

Surgical Inpatient Studies Kept, Pediatric Studies Cut

Studies of hospitalized surgical adults were kept, because their fasting orders follow the same anesthesia rules as medical patients going for sedated procedures, and because the strongest evidence on fasting duration comes from them. Pediatric studies were cut: children's fasting guidance and risks differ, and applying them to adults would mislead.

What this part is doingThe inclusion decisions are explained, not just listed, which is what lets a reader judge whether the final set is biased.

Gray Literature, Counted Separately

[Four] sources outside the databases were added and counted separately: the national anesthesia fasting guideline, an editorial on a hospital initiative allowing sips of clear fluids until called for surgery, a hospital fasting policy from another health system and a commentary on implementing reduced fasting times. Gray literature can show current practice but is not counted as research evidence.

Levels the Remainder Earned

Using the Johns Hopkins levels (Dang et al., 2022), the [11] included sources were: Level I, one systematic review of trials; Level III, [four] observational studies of hospital fasting orders and times, including a large retrospective study of medical inpatients (Sorita et al., 2015); Level IV, [two] clinical practice guidelines; Level V, [four] quality improvement reports and literature reviews.

What the Search Missed

Two limits are worth naming. Searching only English excludes work from countries where fasting reform started earlier, and the date limit may miss older observational studies of medical wards. A librarian review of the strategy before the next update would also check whether a heading for procedural sedation adds relevant studies.

Levels That Lean Low

Most of the evidence on hospital fasting practice is observational or quality improvement. The strongest evidence, from trials, concerns safety of shorter fasts in surgical patients. That imbalance shapes what the synthesis can claim.

What this part is doingThe summary states the weakness of the evidence base before the synthesis, which keeps later claims honest.

References

Dang, D., Dearholt, S. L., Bissett, K., Ascenzi, J., & Whalen, M. (2022). Johns Hopkins evidence-based practice for nurses and healthcare professionals: Model and guidelines (4th ed.). Sigma Theta Tau International.

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

Sorita, A., Thongprayoon, C., Ahmed, A., Bates, R. E., Ratelle, J. T., Rieck, K. M., Devalapalli, A. P., Issa, M., Shah, R. M., Lalama, M. A., Wang, Z., Murad, M. H., & Kashiwagi, D. T. (2015). Frequency and appropriateness of fasting orders in the hospital. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 90(9), 1225-1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.013

The Purdue Global NU298 Unit 3 instructions

Unit 3 usually asks students to document a structured literature search for the capstone question. Prompts commonly want the question, databases, dates and limits, subject headings and keywords, how they were combined, counts at each screening stage, reasons for exclusion and the evidence levels of the final set. Instructors look for a search another student could rerun, inclusion and exclusion decisions explained rather than just listed, gray literature handled separately and an honest view of the strength of what was found. A flow diagram or its written equivalent is often expected. Summaries usually run two to three pages, citing the reporting guideline and the leveling system in APA 7, with counts bracketed when composite.

How this NU298 Unit 3 example is built

The summary states the question, then the databases, dates and language limit. Terms appear as headings and keywords with the logic for combining them. Counts run from records found to sources included, with reasons for exclusion at full text, citing the reporting guideline for systematic searches; the highlighted sentence explains the rerun goal. A section explains keeping surgical studies and cutting pediatric ones, with a margin note. Gray literature is listed separately. Levels are assigned using the Johns Hopkins model, including a large retrospective study of medical inpatients. A section names what the search missed, and another states that the levels lean low, with a margin note.

Reading the NU298 Unit 3 grading rubric

Search summary rubrics in NU 298 generally reward a reproducible strategy, appropriate databases and terms, transparent screening, justified inclusion decisions, correct leveling and honest appraisal of the evidence base. Strategy points depend on terms, limits and logic stated fully. Database points go to choices suited to nursing questions. Screening points are earned by counts at each stage that add up. Inclusion points reward reasons tied to the question, such as why pediatric studies were excluded. Leveling points require each source placed correctly. Appraisal points go to naming the weaknesses of the evidence before using it. Summaries that a classmate could rerun and check tend to earn top marks.

NU298 Unit 3 help from the desk

Search summaries often lose points by giving final numbers with no path from the first search, or by listing keywords without showing how they were combined. Another frequent error is excluding studies without saying why. Some students mix gray literature with research, inflating the evidence. Others assign levels inconsistently. Write the strategy so it can be repeated, combine headings and keywords, report counts at every stage, explain each exclusion category, keep gray literature apart, level every source with one system and say plainly where the evidence is thin. Ask a librarian to review the strategy before the final search. Keep a copy of every search string with its date, since the final capstone will cite them.

Get an NU298 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

A Unit 3 search summary can be anything from a paragraph with a table to a full PRISMA-style account. Include the instructions, the rubric, the PICOT question and the hierarchy the course names, whether Johns Hopkins, Melnyk or another, and a reproducible search follows with every exclusion explained. First custom sample free, back in 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.

More NU298 papers and BSN samples

NU298 Unit 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NU298 Unit 3 sample paper?

The complete NU298 Unit 3 literature search summary is here, tracing a composite capstone search on hospital fasting orders from 386 records to 11 sources, with terms, counts, levels and three sources. Your own search can be documented the same way with our help.

Why combine subject headings and keywords in NU298 Unit 3?

Headings find indexed studies reliably, and keywords catch recent studies not yet indexed, so using both makes the search more complete.

Why were pediatric studies excluded?

Children's fasting rules and risks differ from adults', so applying pediatric findings to adult medical inpatients could mislead.

What is gray literature?

Material outside peer-reviewed journals, such as guidelines, policies and editorials, counted separately from research evidence.

What are the Johns Hopkins evidence levels?

A system rating evidence from Level I, such as systematic reviews of trials, to Level V, such as expert opinion and quality improvement reports.