| Course | NR 716 Analytic Methods |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Search strategy write-up |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 716 Week 3
Search Strategy for Emergency Department Fascia Iliaca Blocks in Older Adults With Hip Fracture, Recorded So It Can Be Run Again
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 716: Analytic Methods
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Search Strategy for Emergency Department Fascia Iliaca Blocks in Older Adults With Hip Fracture, Recorded So It Can Be Run Again
The Question the Search Serves
The search was built for one intervention question: for older adults, 65 and up, who come through our emergency department with a broken hip, would a fascia iliaca block, guided by ultrasound and given shortly after the X-ray, set against intravenous opioid and acetaminophen with any block deferred to anesthesia, reduce preoperative delirium and early opioid use? Because it is an intervention question, the search looks first for systematic reviews and randomized trials, and then for cohort studies and guidelines on the part trials rarely answer, which is who in an emergency department can place the block safely.
Sources Chosen With Reasons
PubMed was searched because it indexes the anesthesia, emergency medicine and geriatrics journals where most trials of nerve blocks for hip fracture appear. CINAHL was searched because questions about who places the block, nurses, advanced practice nurses or physicians, are more likely to be reported in nursing journals. The Cochrane Library was searched for its database of systematic reviews and its register of controlled trials, which also captures trials indexed only in Embase; our library does not license Embase, which is a stated limit of this search. Two guideline sources were checked directly: the national orthopedic surgeons' guideline on hip fractures in older adults and the hip fracture guideline issued by NICE in England. ClinicalTrials.gov was also searched on 12 January 2027 with the terms fascia iliaca and hip fracture, not to add studies to the set but to see what is still running. It listed four trials recruiting in emergency departments, which means the evidence on early placement may change within two or three years and the pathway should name a date to look again.
Strings Exactly as Typed
Table 1
Sources, Dates, Strings and Counts
| Source | Date run | String as entered | Records |
|---|---|---|---|
| PubMed | 11 January 2027 | ("hip fracture*"[tiab] OR "Hip Fractures"[Mesh] OR "proximal femur fracture*"[tiab] OR "femoral neck fracture*"[tiab]) AND ("Nerve Block"[Mesh] OR "fascia iliaca"[tiab] OR "femoral nerve block*"[tiab] OR "regional anesth*"[tiab] OR "peripheral nerve block*"[tiab]) | 386 |
| CINAHL | 11 January 2027 | (MH "Hip Fractures+" OR "hip fracture*") AND (MH "Nerve Block" OR "fascia iliaca" OR "femoral nerve block*" OR "regional anesth*") | 112 |
| Cochrane Library, reviews | 12 January 2027 | "hip fracture*" AND ("nerve block*" OR "fascia iliaca") in title, abstract or keyword | 3 |
| Cochrane Library, trials | 12 January 2027 | Same string, trials register | 241 |
| Guidelines | 12 January 2027 | Hip fracture guidelines checked on each body's site | 2 |
Note. Note. In PubMed, the British spelling of anesthesia was added as a fifth intervention term; it returned 31 records not found by the American spelling.
Controlled vocabulary and keywords are shown together in each string but entered as separate terms joined by OR, so that recently added records, which carry no subject headings yet, are still found by their keywords. Truncation is marked with an asterisk exactly as typed.
Limits, Each With a Reason
Primary studies were limited to publication from 2016 onward, because the Cochrane review on nerve blocks for hip fracture searched to November 2019 and included 49 trials (Guay & Kopp, 2020); earlier trials are represented through that review rather than searched again. Studies after 2016 were kept even where the review had already included them, so that the most relevant trials could be read in full. English language was applied, because the team has no translation support; the Cochrane review includes trials in other languages, which partly offsets this. No age filter was used, because database age filters depend on indexing and would drop new records, so age was handled at screening instead. No limit was placed on design at the search stage.
The Count Trail
The five sources returned 744 records. Removing 263 duplicates left 481. Title and abstract screening excluded 438, leaving 43 for full-text review. Full-text review excluded 34: seven studied a population mostly under 65 with no older subgroup reported, twelve gave the block only after surgery, five compared two blocks with no arm that received usual analgesia, six were conference abstracts only, three were secondary reports of trials already included and one could not be obtained. Seven studies and two guidelines were kept.
Testing the Strings Against Known Studies
Before the counts were accepted, the PubMed string was tested against three trials the team already knew to be relevant: a multisite trial of emergency department nerve blocks in New York (Morrison et al., 2016), a double-blind trial from a Swiss emergency department and a placebo-controlled trial from a Dutch one. The string retrieved all three. A first version without the term for femoral nerve blocks missed the New York trial, whose emergency department block was femoral, followed by a fascia iliaca catheter; that term was added and the search rerun on the dates shown. Testing a string against known studies is the simplest check that it is not too narrow, and recording the failed first version shows why the final string carries the terms it does.
Screening Written as Rules
Screening followed five rules written before the first record was read. A record was kept at title and abstract if it involved adults with hip fracture, a peripheral nerve block given before surgery and any comparison. At full text, a study was kept if at least half of its participants were 65 or older or an older subgroup was reported; if the block was placed before surgery; and if it reported pain, opioid use, delirium or adverse events. Head-to-head comparisons of two blocks were excluded unless the trial was set in an emergency department, because the pathway also has to choose a technique, and one such trial was kept under that rule (Di Pietro et al., 2025). Studies of who places the block were kept at any design level, because no trial addresses that question.
The Final Set
The set includes the Cochrane review, five randomized trials, one cohort study of nurse-placed blocks in an Australian emergency department (Gawthorne et al., 2021) and the two guidelines. Its two weakest points are the missing Embase search and a single screener. To reduce the second, a colleague independently screened a random 50 of the 481 titles and abstracts and disagreed on 3, all three resolved by discussion without changing a rule.
References
Di Pietro, S., Maffeis, R., Jannelli, E., Mascia, B., Resta, F., De Silvestri, A., Musella, V., Centurioni, C. E., Regeni, E., Grassi, F. A., Locatelli, A., & Perlini, S. (2025). Comparing the pericapsular nerve group block and fascia iliaca block for acute pain management in patients with hip fracture: A randomised clinical trial. Anaesthesia, 80(12), 1484-1492. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16695
Gawthorne, J., Stevens, J., Faux, S. G., Leung, J., McInnes, E., Fasugba, O., Mcelduff, B., & Middleton, S. (2021). Can emergency nurses safely and effectively insert fascia iliaca blocks in patients with a fractured neck of femur? A prospective cohort study in an Australian emergency department. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30(23-24), 3611-3622. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15883
Guay, J., & Kopp, S. (2020). Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020(11), Article CD001159. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001159.pub3
Morrison, R. S., Dickman, E., Hwang, U., Akhtar, S., Ferguson, T., Huang, J., Jeng, C. L., Nelson, B. P., Rosenblatt, M. A., Silverstein, J. H., Strayer, R. J., Torrillo, T. M., & Todd, K. H. (2016). Regional nerve blocks improve pain and functional outcomes in hip fracture: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64(12), 2433-2439. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14386
What the NR 716 Week 3 assignment asks for
Write for a reader who intends to rerun the search. State why each database fits your question, and give the date of each run, because an index grows and an undated search cannot be repeated. Show every string exactly as entered, with controlled vocabulary and keywords visible, brackets and truncation included. Give guideline sources and trial registries their own line. List each limit with a reason, and avoid filters that quietly drop recent records. Test your strings against studies you already know are relevant and report what changed. Trace the counts at every stage, from records found to studies kept, with the reason each group was excluded. Write your screening rules as rules, decided before screening began, and name any exception and the record it admitted. Close with the weaknesses of the search and what you did about them.
Inside the NR 716 Week 3 example
The sample states the question, then sets out the case for each of its three databases, admits Embase was unavailable and adds two guidelines and a trial registry, which listed four recruiting trials. A table gives each source's run date, exact string and count. Limits are justified one by one: a 2016 start because the Cochrane review covers earlier trials, English only with the review offsetting it and no age filter because filters drop unindexed records. A section reports that a first string missed the New York trial until a femoral block term was added. The count trail moves from 744 records through 481 after duplicates and 43 full texts to nine kept, with six exclusion reasons. Screening rules include a head-to-head exception, and a second screener checked 50 titles.
Where the points sit in the NR 716 Week 3 rubric
The most expensive failure is a search summarized instead of recorded: databases named, terms called relevant and nothing a reader could run. That also leaves the rest of the term unauditable. Next is an undated run, which looks complete until someone tries it and gets a different number. Marks are lost for strings paraphrased into concepts, for keywords and controlled vocabulary merged into one column and for filters applied without comment. Graders also take points for exclusions counted but never explained and for missing guideline sources on a practice question. Write-ups score well when every stage carries a count, when strings were tested against known studies and when the screening rules were written down before screening began.
Common NR 716 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Recording a search precisely is tedious, which is why most write-ups summarize it instead. If you share your question and the searches you have already run, we can help you document each string exactly as typed, add run dates, justify every limit, test the strings against studies you already know and lay out the count trail with a reason for each group excluded. We can also help you turn your screening decisions into rules written before screening. The search, the counts and the studies kept are your own work, and the write-up simply makes them repeatable.
Get a NR 716 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 3 instructions, the table your section uses and your question, and a custom example is documented into your own format and returned inside 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free. Running the searches and deciding what survives screening remain yours.
More NR 716 papers and DNP samples
- NR 716 Week 1: Model Placement Post
- NR 716 Week 2: PICOT Question Write-Up
- NR 716 Week 4: Evidence Appraisal Table
- NR 716 Week 5: Literature Matrix
- NR 716 Week 6: Critical Appraisal Write-up
- NR 716 Week 7: Evidence Synthesis Paper
- NR 716 Week 8: Practice Recommendation Presentation
- NR 715 Week 3: Concept Analysis
- NR 714 Week 3: Epidemiologic Rates Write-Up
- NR 709A Week 3: Baseline to Endpoint Comparison
- NR 702A Week 3: Setting Description
NR 716 Week 3 questions, answered
How many databases does a doctoral search need?
Fewer than students fear, each chosen for a reason. Two or three named for what they index, plus the guideline sources that would carry an existing answer, generally beats a list of everything the library licenses. What earns marks is the sentence justifying each pick against your question, and the note recording what a source was searched for and failed to return.
Do runs that returned nothing belong in the write-up?
They are among its most useful rows. An empty run marks the edge of the literature and is the reason the following string was widened, and it is also the honest origin of a thin evidence base you will have to write around later. Cutting the failures leaves a count trail nobody can follow and a search that looks suspiciously effortless.
What if a guideline already answers my question?
Then the project changes shape rather than dying, and saying so early is a strength. A published recommendation moves the work from asking whether something helps to asking why the unit is not doing it, which is an implementation question. Record the guideline, its currency and its developer in the document, and take the shift to your section before rewriting anything.
Where can I find a free NR 716 Week 3 sample paper?
This page holds a complete search record for an emergency department nerve block question, with exact strings, dates and the count trail.
Why did the NR 716 Week 3 sample avoid an age filter?
Database age filters rely on indexing, so newer records without subject tags would be dropped; age was checked during screening instead.