PU555 Unit 3 Literature Search Log Example

Course	PU555 Foundations of Public Health Research
Unit	Unit 3
Paper type	Literature search log
Length	About 780 words, 5 pages double-spaced
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Purdue University Global
Program	Master of Public Health (MPH)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PU555 Unit 3

Every Inclusion Decision Written Down: A Unit 3 Literature Search Log for a Small Evidence Base on Kidney Disease Awareness, With Two Databases, Two Agency Sources and Citation Chasing to a Round That Added Nothing

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PU555: Foundations of Public Health Research

Unit 3 Literature Search Log

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The search dates and counts are the writer's own and are illustrative; the databases, the sources and the research cited are real.

What this part is doingThe log records decisions rather than results, because a search that cannot be repeated by somebody else is a reading list and not a method.

Question Being Searched

Among adults with laboratory evidence of reduced kidney function, what proportion are aware of the diagnosis, and what is known about variation by care access and by how the awareness question is asked?

Databases and Why These Two

PubMed for biomedical indexing and Scopus for coverage of health services and policy journals that PubMed indexes unevenly. Two databases are a defensible minimum for a focused question of this kind, and the evidence on database combinations supports pairing a biomedical index with a broader one rather than running four overlapping biomedical sources (Bramer et al., 2017). CINAHL was considered and excluded, with the reason recorded below.

Search One: PubMed

1. Date searched: day 1 of the assignment week. Interface: PubMed web.

2. Strategy: ("chronic kidney disease" OR "renal insufficiency" OR CKD) AND (awareness OR unaware OR "patient knowledge" OR "ever told") AND (prevalence OR proportion OR survey).

3. Filters: English, human, 2005 to present. No study-design filter, deliberately, since narrative surveys and analyses of national data would both be caught by one.

4. Records returned: 418.

5. Titles and abstracts screened: 418. Excluded 379. Reasons recorded in four groups: clinical management of kidney disease with no awareness measure, 212; awareness among clinicians rather than patients, 54; pediatric or transplant populations, 38; not English or no abstract, 75.

6. Full text retrieved: 39. Included: 11.

Search Two: Scopus

1. Date searched: day 2. Same concepts, Scopus syntax, title-abstract-keyword fields.

2. Records returned: 266, of which 193 were duplicates of the PubMed set.

3. Unique records screened: 73. Full text retrieved: 9. Included: 3, all from health services journals, which is the reason the second database was run at all.

Agency and Gray Literature

1. The national kidney surveillance system maintained by the federal public health agency: used for current national estimates and for the definitions behind them. One report retained.

2. The national renal data system's annual report: used for incidence and treated prevalence figures. One chapter retained.

3. Neither is peer reviewed, and both are recorded as agency sources rather than studies, because their numbers will be cited for description and not as evidence of an effect.

Two agency reports, clearly labeled as agency reports, are better than the same numbers borrowed from a journal article that cited them.

Citation Chasing

1. Starting point: the most cited national awareness analysis in the included set (Plantinga et al., 2008).

2. Backward chasing of its reference list: 4 records screened, 1 included.

3. Forward chasing through citing articles: 112 screened by title, 14 full text, 4 included, of which the most useful was a synthesis across settings that showed how much the estimate depends on question wording (Chu et al., 2021).

4. Second round from the four newly included papers: 31 titles screened, 0 new inclusions. Chasing stopped here, and the stopping rule is recorded: one full round with no new inclusions.

What this part is doingWriting the stopping rule into the log, rather than stopping when the writer got tired, is what makes the search reproducible.

Excluded Sources and Reasons

1. CINAHL: excluded for access rather than relevance. Recorded honestly, since an access limitation is a limitation of the review.

2. Conference abstracts: excluded; insufficient method detail to judge an awareness measure.

3. Studies before 2005: excluded because the laboratory equation for estimating filtration changed, so earlier prevalence denominators are not comparable.

4. One frequently cited paper excluded for defining awareness from diagnosis codes rather than from patient report, which answers a different question.

Final Count

Nineteen records retained: 14 from databases, 1 from backward chasing, 4 from forward chasing, plus 2 agency sources held separately. A flow summary accompanies the log, in the four stages of identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion, which is the reporting convention this course follows (Page et al., 2021).

What This Log Would Let Another Person Do

A reader with this log can rerun both searches, reproduce the 418 and 266 figures within the drift of a few records, see which exclusions were judgment calls and which were mechanical, and find the one place where the search was limited by access rather than by design. That is the whole purpose of keeping it, and it is also why the log was written during the search rather than reconstructed afterward, which is the step most students skip and the one that makes the counts unreliable.

References

Bramer, W. M., Rethlefsen, M. L., Kleijnen, J., & Franco, O. H. (2017). Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews, 6, 245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y

Chu, C. D., Chen, M. H., McCulloch, C. E., Powe, N. R., Estrella, M. M., Shlipak, M. G., & Tuot, D. S. (2021). Patient awareness of CKD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-oriented questions and study setting. Kidney Medicine, 3(4), 576-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2021.03.014

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., Hrobjartsson, 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

Plantinga, L. C., Boulware, L. E., Coresh, J., Stevens, L. A., Miller, E. R., Saran, R., Messer, K. L., Levey, A. S., & Powe, N. R. (2008). Patient awareness of chronic kidney disease: Trends and predictors. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168(20), 2268-2275. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.20.2268

PU555 Unit 3 instructions, in plain terms

Unit 3 usually asks for a documented search rather than a finished review. Record the date, the interface and the exact strategy for each database, so the counts can be reproduced within a few records. Justify how many databases you ran and why those ones; two complementary indexes beat four overlapping biomedical ones. Report screening in numbers at each stage and group your exclusion reasons with counts attached. Treat agency and gray literature separately and label it, since its numbers will be used for description rather than as evidence of effect. Chase citations in both directions and state the rule that made you stop. Record any source you excluded for access rather than relevance, because that is a limitation of the review.

Inside the PU555 Unit 3 example

The log on this page opens with the question being searched, names its two databases and explains the pairing, and a margin note says the log records decisions rather than results. Each search is given with date, interface, strategy, filters and counts at every stage, with 379 exclusions grouped into four reasons. The second database's unique yield is reported, which is the justification for having run it. Two agency sources are listed and labeled, and a highlighted line argues for citing them directly rather than through an article that borrowed their numbers. Forward and backward chasing follow with counts, the stopping rule appears explicitly, and a further margin note introduces the grouped exclusions. A final section says what another researcher could do with the log.

PU555 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points

Rubrics for a search log score reproducibility first. Points come for dates, interfaces and strategies written out in full, and for counts at identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion. Credit goes to a justified choice of databases and to reporting the unique yield of each. Grouped exclusion reasons with counts earn marks; a paragraph describing exclusions in general terms does not. Labeling agency material as agency material is rewarded, as is recording an exclusion made for access reasons. Graders look for a stated stopping rule on citation chasing, which most submissions omit. A four-stage flow summary is expected, and the reporting convention and any methods source need APA 7 citations.

PU555 Unit 3 help from the desk

The commonest problem is a log written after the search, which produces round numbers nobody can reproduce; keep it open while you work. The second is one database, usually because it was the first one tried, with no justification for the choice. Third, do not bury exclusions in prose: group them, count them, and show which were mechanical and which were judgment calls. Avoid chasing citations until you run out of patience, since a stated rule, such as one full round with no new inclusions, is both defensible and shorter. And record anything you could not reach, because an access limitation reported is a limitation, while an access limitation hidden is a flaw. We can build the log for your own question inside two days.

Get a PU555 Unit 3 example written to your instructions

Your Unit 2 research question anchors the search log, so it travels with the list of databases your library licenses and the Unit 3 rubric. Eligibility rules, search rows and a decision for every full text come back within 24-48h. There is no charge for a first custom sample. 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 PU555 papers and MPH samples

PU555 Unit 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PU555 Unit 3 sample paper?

The complete search log, counts and stopping rule included, is published on this page.

How many databases are enough?

Two complementary ones for a focused question, with the unique yield of the second reported so the choice can be judged.

How should exclusions be recorded?

Grouped with counts and reasons, so a reader can see which decisions were mechanical and which required judgment.

When do you stop chasing citations?

After one complete round that yields no new inclusions, with that rule written down so the endpoint is not left to guesswork.

Does gray literature belong in the log?

Yes, listed separately and labeled as agency material, because those numbers support description rather than claims about effect.