| Course | NR 585NP Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice for Advanced Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Search strategy log |
| Length | About 1,120 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | MSN, nurse practitioner core |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 585NP Week 3
Search Strategy Log: Home Blood Pressure Monitoring With Clinician Titration, Three Databases, Every String as Run and Every Count From Retrieval to the Final Set
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 585NP: Research Methods and Evidence-Based Practice for Advanced Nursing Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Search Strategy Log: Home Blood Pressure Monitoring With Clinician Titration, Three Databases, Every String as Run and Every Count From Retrieval to the Final Set
A Record, Not a Report
This log was kept while searching, between 8 and 12 September 2026, for the question: in adults with hypertension who stay above target on office readings (130/80 mm Hg or more), does self-measured blood pressure monitoring with medication adjusted by a clinician, compared with office measurement and usual follow-up, reduce clinic systolic pressure and lift the proportion reaching target by six months? Strings are reproduced exactly as run. Counts are as returned on the date shown and will differ if rerun later.
Databases and Why Each Was Chosen
PubMed (MEDLINE): the largest index of clinical trials in hypertension, with medical subject headings that capture blood pressure monitoring.
CINAHL Complete: indexes nursing journals, where nurse-led titration studies may appear that MEDLINE misses.
Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and the Database of Systematic Reviews): collects trials from many sources and holds Cochrane reviews.
Bramer et al. (2017) found that combining several major databases was needed to find most of the references included in systematic reviews; three is a compromise for a course search, and the log records it as a limit.
The Strings
PubMed, run 8 September 2026:
1 hypertension[mh] OR hypertens*[tiab] OR "high blood pressure"[tiab]
2 "self-monitor*"[tiab] OR "self-measur*"[tiab] OR "home blood pressure"[tiab] OR "home BP"[tiab] OR telemonitor*[tiab] OR "Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory"[mh]
3 randomized controlled trial[pt] OR random*[tiab] OR systematic[sb] OR meta-analysis[pt]
4 #1 AND #2 AND #3
Filter: English; 2008 to 2026.
Results: #4 returned 1,436; after filters, 1,108.
CINAHL, run 9 September 2026:
(MH "Hypertension+" OR TI hypertens* OR AB hypertens*) AND (TI ("self-monitor*" OR "home blood pressure" OR telemonitor*) OR AB ("self-monitor*" OR "home blood pressure" OR telemonitor*)) AND (PT "randomized controlled trial" OR TI random* OR AB random* OR PT "systematic review")
Limiters: English; 2008 to 2026; peer reviewed.
Results: 512.
Cochrane Library, run 9 September 2026:
(hypertens*):ti,ab,kw AND ("self-monitor*" OR "home blood pressure" OR telemonitor*):ti,ab,kw
Limit: 2008 to 2026.
Results: 9 reviews; 734 trials in CENTRAL.
Design Filters Have Consequences
The design line in PubMed (#3) keeps randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses and removes everything else. That choice has a cost: it removes cohort studies of home monitoring programs in routine practice, which might show how such programs perform outside trials. The eventual claim will therefore be about what home monitoring achieves under trial conditions. I recorded this so the synthesis does not claim more about routine practice than the set can support.
The 2008 start date removes early trials. I chose it because home cuffs and patient portals changed a great deal after that point, and earlier trials used devices and contact methods Cedar would not use. One older trial, cited by several reviews, was checked by hand and is noted below.
Numbers at Every Stage
Records retrieved: 1,108 (PubMed) + 512 (CINAHL) + 9 + 734 (Cochrane) = 2,363.
Duplicates removed in a reference manager: 1,071.
Records screened by title and abstract: 1,292.
Excluded at title and abstract: 1,221.
Full texts sought: 71. Not retrieved: 2 (conference abstracts with no full paper).
Full texts assessed: 69.
Excluded at full text: 55, with reasons:
- No clinician adjustment of medication in any arm and no comparison of that element: 14
- Population not mainly adults with uncontrolled hypertension (for example, pregnancy, kidney dialysis): 11
- Outcome not office or home systolic pressure: 9
- Follow-up shorter than three months: 12
- Protocol or secondary analysis of an already included trial: 9
Included: 14 (2 systematic reviews with meta-analysis, 12 randomized trials).
These counts follow the stages of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Page et al., 2021), which is attached as a figure in the assignment folder.
Screening Rules Written as Rules
Include at title and abstract if: adults with hypertension; home or self-measured blood pressure in at least one arm; a comparison arm; a blood pressure outcome. When unsure, include for full text.
Include at full text if: randomized design or systematic review of randomized trials; follow-up of at least three months; office or home systolic pressure reported with a measure of spread.
A second reviewer, a nurse practitioner colleague, screened a random 10% of titles and abstracts. We disagreed on 6 of 129 and resolved all six by discussion; four were included for full text.
Searches That Did Not Work
Two earlier strings were abandoned, and they are recorded because they shaped the final ones. On 8 September, a PubMed string using only "Self Care"[mh] with hypertension returned more than 9,000 records, most about diet and exercise; it was dropped the same day. A first version of #2 without telemonitor* missed a known pharmacist trial in which readings were sent electronically; adding the term brought it in. In CINAHL, a subject heading search for home blood pressure monitoring alone returned 140 records and missed several trials indexed only by text words, so text words were added. Each change was tested by checking whether three trials I already knew of appeared in the results.
Hand Search
I checked the reference lists of the two included reviews and found one additional trial within the date range that met the rules, which is counted among the 12 above. A forward citation search for the largest trial found one secondary analysis, which was excluded as a duplicate population.
What the Surviving Set Is Made Of
Two systematic reviews: one a pooled analysis of individual patients' data from 25 trials (Tucker et al., 2017), one a meta-analysis including 52 comparisons (Uhlig et al., 2013).
Twelve trials: seven in which a clinician (doctor, nurse or pharmacist) adjusted medication based on home readings, five in which home monitoring was compared with usual care with no structured adjustment. Eight were in primary care. Five were in the United States, four in the United Kingdom and three elsewhere in Europe. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 months.
The set is therefore weighted toward primary care and toward trials with a clinician acting on readings, which suits the question. It contains no trial in which a registered nurse alone titrated under a standing protocol in a US practice like Cedar; the closest are pharmacist-led and nurse-supported trials.
Limits
The three databases miss some trials found only in other indexes, and the English language limit removes some European work. One reviewer screened most records.
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
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, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Tucker, K. L., Sheppard, J. P., Stevens, R., Bosworth, H. B., Bove, A., Bray, E. P., Earle, K., George, J., Godwin, M., Green, B. B., Hebert, P., Hobbs, F. D. R., Kantola, I., Kerry, S. M., Leiva, A., Magid, D. J., Mant, J., Margolis, K. L., McKinstry, B., ... McManus, R. J. (2017). Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 14(9), e1002389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002389
Uhlig, K., Patel, K., Ip, S., Kitsios, G. D., & Balk, E. M. (2013). Self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine, 159(3), 185-194. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-159-3-201308060-00008
NR 585NP Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 3 log should read like a working record kept while searching. Give each database with the reason it suits your question, and reproduce each string exactly as run, with operators, wildcards and the date. Treat design filters as choices: every design excluded narrows what the eventual claim can say, so record the cost. Put a number at every stage, from retrieval through duplicates, screening and full text, with reasons for exclusions. Write screening rules as rules. Most rubrics mark down a paragraph reporting that a search was done, runs with no counts, filters applied silently and a surviving set never described.
How the NR 585NP Week 3 example is put together
The sample opens with the question and dates of searching. It explains why PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were chosen and cites work on database combinations. Strings are reproduced line by line with counts. A section explains what the trial and review filter removes and why 2008 is the start date. Counts run from 2,363 retrieved to 14 included, with five exclusion reasons. Screening rules and a 10% second-reviewer check follow. Two abandoned strings are recorded, then the hand search and the makeup of the final set: two reviews and 12 trials, mostly in primary care. Margin notes point out where the strings, the counts and the filter costs earn their rows.
Where the points sit in the NR 585NP Week 3 rubric
The heaviest loss is the log that reports having searched, with no strings or dates; every string here is reproduced with its date. A run with no number hides whether the search was narrowed or abandoned, so counts appear at every stage. Filters applied in silence cost a row, and the design filter's cost is written out. A design limit cutting trials the writer never noticed loses marks, and abandoned strings show how gaps were caught. Screening rules written as rules, with a second reviewer, earn the screening criterion. Describing the surviving set prepares the appraisal. Recording what the set lacks, such as a nurse-led US trial, shows the writer knows the limits of the search.
Common NR 585NP Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The commonest NR 585NP Week 3 problem is a paragraph saying the writer searched CINAHL and PubMed using keywords. Another is strings with no dates or counts. Many logs apply filters without saying what they removed. Exclusion reasons are often missing. Few describe what the final set contains. Keep the log open while you search, paste each string as you run it and record the count immediately. If your question differs, send it with your strings, and a sample log can be laid out the same way. Test each string by checking whether studies you already know of appear in the results. Record any string you abandon and the reason.
Get a NR 585NP Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment sheet and the log form your classroom uses, plus the question you are searching against, and we will produce a completed search strategy log written to those instructions. Turnaround is 24-48h, the first custom example is free, and nothing is owed to us afterwards.
More NR 585NP papers and MSN samples
- NR 585NP Week 1: Testing a Claim Post
- NR 585NP Week 2: Clinical Question Write-Up
- NR 585NP Week 4: Article Appraisal
- NR 585NP Week 5: Sample Paper, in Real Form
- NR 585NP Week 6: Evidence Synthesis
- NR 585NP Week 7: Practice Change Recommendation
- NR 585NP Week 8: Dissemination Plan
- NR 584NP Week 3: Root Cause Analysis
- NR 507 Week 1: Discussion Post
- NR 583NP Week 3: System Evaluation
- NR 509 Week 3: Focused Exam Write-up
NR 585NP Week 3 questions, answered
How many databases does a search log usually need?
Your section sets the number and it differs between classrooms, so read the assignment before planning any runs. The defensible pattern is to search where evidence for this kind of question actually lives, then say why each source suited it. A log covering three databases with reasons attached tends to score above one covering six with none.
Should guidelines and gray literature appear in the log?
Where the section allows them, yes, and they earn their line. A professional body may have appraised the same evidence already and published a position, which changes what the rest of the term has left to do. Record them apart from the database runs so a reader can see which portion of the set passed through screening.
What if the search returns almost nothing?
That is a result, and the log should say so plainly rather than padding the set with loosely related work. A near-empty return usually means the question is narrower than the literature is, and the honest move is to record the runs, state the yield, and name the element that would have to widen. Sections generally treat this well when it is documented.
Where can I find a free NR 585NP Week 3 sample paper?
The full search strategy log for home blood pressure monitoring, with strings, dates and counts at every stage, is on this page.
What did the design filter cost in the NR 585NP Week 3 log?
It removed cohort studies of home monitoring in routine practice, so the eventual claim covers results under trial conditions only.