NR 439 Week 3 Documented Literature Search Strategy Example

Course	NR 439 RN Evidence-Based Practice
Week	3
Paper type	Literature search strategy
Length	About 1,120 words, 6 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	RN-to-BSN
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NR 439 Week 3

Gum Chewing After Elective Bowel Resection: A Documented Literature Search Strategy

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 439: RN Evidence-Based Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the intervention, the surgical population and the document type, so the reader expects a search record rather than a review of findings. Student APA 7 title page with no running head.

Gum Chewing After Elective Bowel Resection: A Documented Literature Search Strategy

The Question Being Searched

The search recorded here serves one PICOT question carried forward from the previous week: in adults recovering from elective bowel resection on a surgical unit, does chewing sugar-free gum three times a day beginning on the first postoperative day, compared with standard postoperative care alone, shorten the time to first flatus and first bowel movement and reduce length of stay during the hospital admission? The practice problem comes from a composite 24-bed surgical unit where postoperative ileus is the most common reason colorectal patients stay past their expected discharge date, and where gum is offered by some nurses and never mentioned by others.

Each PICOT element became a concept group before any database was opened. The population group covered colorectal surgery, bowel resection, colectomy and abdominal surgery. The intervention group covered chewing gum, gum chewing and sham feeding, since the intervention is indexed under the physiological term in some journals. The comparison, standard postoperative care, was not searched as a term, because trials rarely index their control arm; it was applied at screening instead. The outcome group covered postoperative ileus, flatus, bowel movement, return of bowel function and length of stay. Subject headings and keywords were recorded separately, because they behave differently in each database and a search that mixes them without saying so cannot be repeated by anyone else.

What this page is doingThe record opens with the question it serves and the problem behind it, then shows the question broken into concept groups. Adding sham feeding as a synonym is a small move that shows the writer knows how the literature labels this intervention, and saying the comparison was applied at screening is an honest methods decision.

Databases and Why Each Was Chosen

Three sources were searched in a fixed order. CINAHL Complete came first because it indexes the perioperative nursing journals and because its subject heading for chewing gum allows a precise first run. PubMed came second for surgical trials and meta-analyses, many of which appear only in surgical and gastroenterology journals, using Medical Subject Headings. The Cochrane Library came last and was searched for systematic reviews alone, because a pooled review, if one existed, would anchor the appraisal and show which trials were already combined. Google Scholar was used only to check the reference list of the Cochrane review for trials published after its search date, and its results were not counted, because a Google Scholar search cannot be reproduced reliably from one day to the next (Dang et al., 2022).

Search Runs and Yields

Run 1, CINAHL Complete (subject headings): (MH Chewing Gum) AND (MH Postoperative Complications OR MH Ileus). Results: 64.

Run 2, CINAHL Complete (add population keywords): Run 1 AND (colorectal OR colectomy OR bowel resection OR abdominal surgery). Results: 41.

Run 3, CINAHL Complete (limits): Run 2 limited to English, peer reviewed, adults, published 2015 to 2025. Results: 19.

Run 4, PubMed (MeSH plus keywords): (Chewing Gum[MeSH] OR gum chewing OR sham feeding) AND (Ileus[MeSH] OR postoperative ileus OR flatus OR bowel function) AND (colorectal surgery OR colectomy OR abdominal surgery). Results: 238.

Run 5, PubMed (limits): Run 4 limited to English, adults 19 years and older, randomized controlled trial or meta-analysis or systematic review, 2015 to 2025. Results: 57.

Run 6, Cochrane Library (reviews only): chewing gum in title, abstract or keyword. Results: 3 reviews, of which 1 addressed postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function.

Run 7, PubMed (zero-result check): Run 5 AND (nurse OR nursing) in title or abstract. Results: 2. Recorded because it shows the intervention is studied almost entirely by surgical teams, so who delivers it had to be judged from the methods sections.

What this page is doingEvery run carries its database, its exact string and a number, which is what makes a search reproducible. Run 7 is kept even though it barely produced anything, with a line on what the thin result taught. That row shows a grader the search was narrowed on purpose instead of stopped at the first usable article.

Limits and the Reason for Each

Four limits were applied, and each one changes what the search could find. The English limit was applied because the writer cannot appraise studies in other languages, and it has a cost here, since a large share of gum trials were conducted in Asia and Europe and some are published in their own languages. The date range of 2015 to 2025 applied to primary studies only; the Cochrane review published in 2015 pooled the earlier trials, so older work was reached through its included studies rather than by searching again (Short et al., 2015). The adult limit matches the population. The design limit in PubMed kept randomized trials and reviews, because a therapy question is best answered by those designs, and the observational studies it removed were checked by title to confirm none reported an outcome the trials did not.

What this page is doingLimits are reported as decisions with a price attached. Naming the language limit as a real cost for this particular topic, and explaining how older trials were recovered through the review, shows the writer understands that every filter changes the answer.

Inclusion and Exclusion Rules

Studies were included when they enrolled adults having elective abdominal or colorectal surgery, tested gum chewing started after surgery, compared it with care that did not include gum, and reported time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, postoperative ileus or length of stay. Studies were excluded when they enrolled only cesarean or gynecologic surgery patients, when gum was given before surgery only, when the comparison arm received another active intervention such as coffee, or when they were editorials, protocols without results or conference abstracts. Trials run inside an enhanced recovery pathway were kept and flagged, because an enhanced recovery program already speeds the return of bowel function and may shrink any added effect of gum.

Screening Results and the Final Set

The three sources returned 79 records after limits (19 from CINAHL, 57 from PubMed and 3 from Cochrane). Removing 14 duplicates left 65. Title and abstract screening removed 46, most often because the surgery was cesarean or gynecologic or because gum was compared with another active intervention. The remaining 19 full texts were read and 12 were excluded: 5 enrolled mixed surgical populations with no colorectal subgroup, 4 reported no bowel function outcome, 2 were protocols and 1 was a conference abstract. Seven sources were retained: the Cochrane review, which pooled 81 trials and found shorter times to flatus and bowel movement with gum while grading most of the evidence as low quality (Short et al., 2015), one later meta-analysis, and five randomized trials, two of them conducted inside enhanced recovery pathways.

The search answers the question in the sense that direct evidence exists and is plentiful, which is unusual for a nursing intervention this simple. What the record also shows is that the trials were run by surgeons, that few reported who handed the patient the gum or how often, and that the newest trials inside enhanced recovery pathways may show a smaller effect than the older trials pooled in the review. None of that calls for a broader search, since widening the terms would add more of the same designs. The next step is appraisal, beginning with the review because its quality grading sets the standard the five trials will be measured against (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2023).

What this page is doingThe yield is followed to a stated final set, with a count at every step and a reason for every exclusion. The last paragraph judges the search itself, saying what it found, what it cannot settle and why it will not be rerun. That closing judgment is what lifts a search record above a list of articles.

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.

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

Short, V., Herbert, G., Perry, R., Atkinson, C., Ness, A. R., Penfold, C., Thomas, S., Andersen, H. K., & Lewis, S. J. (2015). Chewing gum for postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(2), Article CD006506. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006506.pub3

What the NR 439 Week 3 assignment asks for

The Week 3 search strategy has you search the literature for evidence on your PICOT question and document how you did it. You will likely need the question, search terms by concept, databases and why you chose them, each search run with its results, limits, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final set of sources and APA. Break each PICOT element into a concept group with synonyms before opening a database. Record every run with its database, exact string and number of results. Explain why each database was chosen. Report each limit as a decision with a cost. Follow the yield through duplicates and screening to a final set, with reasons for exclusions. Judge what the search did and did not find.

How the NR 439 Week 3 example is put together

The question section carries forward the PICOT question on sugar-free gum three times a day after bowel resection and lists concept groups for population, intervention and outcomes. The database section explains CINAHL first for its chewing gum heading, then PubMed and Cochrane. Seven runs follow, from 64 CINAHL results with subject headings to 19 after limits, 57 in PubMed with limits, 3 Cochrane reviews and a nursing check returning 2. The limits section explains the English, date, adult and peer-review limits and how older trials were recovered through the review. The inclusion section defines eligible studies. Screening goes from 79 to 65 after duplicates, 19 full texts and 7 retained sources. The last paragraph notes the trials were run by surgical teams.

Where the points sit in the NR 439 Week 3 rubric

Search strategy rubrics in this course usually score the link to the PICOT question, appropriate search terms, database selection, a reproducible record of searches, justified limits, clear inclusion criteria, a final set of relevant sources and APA. Reproducibility counts most, and the paper earns it by giving each run its database, string and number. Search terms are credited for concept groups with synonyms. Database choice scores because each source is justified. Limits earn points when their cost is stated, such as language bias on this topic. Screening with a count at every step and a reason for every exclusion meets the final set row. Judging the search's gaps shows critical thinking. The Johns Hopkins model frames the process.

NR 439 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points

The first loss on this assignment is a search reported as a conclusion, a paragraph saying several databases were searched with relevant keywords and nothing a reader could repeat. Another is leaving out runs that returned little, which hides what the literature lacks. Students also apply limits without saying what they cost, skip duplicate removal or list articles without explaining how they were chosen. Two or three databases are typical. Searches with no results belong in the record. The strategy can list the articles found, but appraisal waits for next week. If your PICOT question is ready, send it and an NR 439 search strategy can be built run by run.

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.

More NR 439 papers and RN-to-BSN samples

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.

Where can I find a free NR 439 Week 3 sample paper?

The complete Week 3 search strategy for gum chewing after bowel resection, with concept groups, seven recorded runs, limits, inclusion rules, the screening count and three references, appears on this page.

How many sources does the NR 439 Week 3 search retain?

Seven: the Cochrane review by Short and colleagues, one later meta-analysis and five randomized trials, after 79 records were reduced to 65 by removing duplicates and then screened.