This page holds a finished NR 439 Week 3 literature search strategy in submission form, with the recording decisions behind it marked. Searches like "nr 439 week 3 assignment example", "nr439 week 3 sample" and "nr 439 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished NR 439 Week 3 literature search strategy looks like
The finished document reads like a laboratory record, and it is meant to. It names each database searched and says why that one, lists the search terms actually typed including the alternatives tried, shows how they were combined, and reports the limits applied with the reason for each. Next to every run sits the number of results, which is the part students most often leave out and graders most often check, because the numbers are what show a search was narrowed deliberately rather than abandoned when something usable appeared. Inclusion and exclusion criteria appear as rules rather than as preferences, and the record ends with a count of what survived and what was kept.
How a NR 439 Week 3 example is structured
Follow the form your section issues, which is often a table with a short narrative beside it. The logic underneath is reproducibility. Databases come first with a line on why each suits a nursing question. Terms follow, given as they were entered rather than as concepts, with the synonyms and any controlled vocabulary shown separately, since those are different moves. The combinations come next, written so a reader can see which sets were joined and how. Limits are then listed with reasons, because a date range or a language filter changes what could have been found. Results counts sit against each run. Inclusion and exclusion rules close the record, followed by the final set and a sentence on whether the search answered the question or has to be run again.
Databases, with a reason each
Every source searched, named with one line on why it suits a nursing question, rather than a list of everything the library offers.
Terms as typed
The words actually entered, with synonyms and controlled vocabulary shown separately, since those are different moves and are marked differently.
How the sets were combined
The joins written out so a reader can reconstruct the run, rather than a summary saying the terms were combined appropriately.
Limits with justification
Date range, language, peer review and any other filter listed with the reason, because each one changes what could have been found.
Yield at every stage
The number of results each run returned, which is what shows the search was narrowed on purpose instead of stopped once something usable appeared.
Inclusion and exclusion rules
Written as rules that could be applied by somebody else, closing with how many articles survived them and were kept.
Where marks go in NR 439 Week 3
The first loss is the search reported as a conclusion rather than a record: a paragraph saying several databases were searched using relevant keywords, with nothing a reader could repeat. The second is the missing yield, where terms and limits are listed but no run has a number beside it, so a grader cannot tell whether the search returned four results or four thousand. Beyond those: one database where the section asked for several, synonyms never attempted so a thin result set was accepted, limits applied silently, inclusion criteria written as preferences rather than rules, and a final set whose size is never actually stated, so nobody can tell what the search produced.
Get a NR 439 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 3 instructions, the search table your section uses and your PICOT question, and a custom example is documented into your own format and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. The searching itself stays yours to run, and so does the choice of what to keep.
NR 439 Week 3 questions, answered
Do I have to report searches that returned nothing?
Yes, and they are some of the most valuable rows in the record. A run that returned zero results shows the boundary of the evidence and explains why the next run was broader. Deleting the failures makes the search look effortless, which is exactly the impression that costs marks in a reproducibility assignment.
How many databases does the assignment expect?
Whatever your section names, and the reason matters more than the count. Two well chosen sources with a sentence each on why they suit a nursing question read better than five listed without justification. If a library guide is specified, follow it, since some sections grade against a named list of databases.
Should the strategy include the articles I found?
Usually only the final set, and only if the instructions ask for it. The search strategy documents the process; the appraisal work in the following weeks handles the articles themselves. Check whether your section wants the citations attached, because that varies and a missing appendix is an easy loss.