NUR 4190 Module 2 Literature Search Strategy Example

Course	NUR-4190 Exploring Evidence-Based Practice and Research in Nursing
Module	Module 2
Paper type	Literature search strategy
Length	About 1,119 words, 7 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Thomas Edison State University
Program	Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NUR 4190 Module 2

Every Term and Every Count: The PubMed Search Behind a Question on Children's Blood Draw Pain

Student Name

Bachelor of Science in Nursing, Thomas Edison State University

NUR-4190: Exploring Evidence-Based Practice and Research in Nursing

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title states the standard the paper sets for itself, repeatability, which is the quality mentors look for in a search strategy assignment. It also keeps the clinical topic visible so the paper reads as part of one project rather than a library exercise.

Every Term and Every Count: The PubMed Search Behind a Question on Children's Blood Draw Pain

The question carried forward from the first module asks whether, for children five to twelve who have monitoring blood draws in our specialty clinic, adding a cold and vibration device to the usual distraction lowers the pain they report during the draw, compared with distraction by itself. What follows is the record of how I looked for studies that could answer it. The goal was a search that another nurse could repeat and get the same results, so every term, limit and count is reported. The search was run in PubMed on October 1, 2026, with a supplementary search for qualitative studies and a hand search of reference lists.

Turning the Question Into Search Concepts

Stillwell et al. (2010) advise building a search from the PICOT elements, using each element as a separate concept, combining synonyms within a concept with OR, and joining concepts with AND. The comparison element is usually left out of the search because studies describe control groups in too many ways to search reliably, and the outcome is often added last so that it does not exclude useful studies too early. I followed that order.

The population concept needed synonyms for both children and the procedure. I used child with truncation to capture children and childhood, plus pediatric. Several trials in this field come from Europe and Australia, so I tested the British spelling as a third term; PubMed's automatic term mapping already retrieved those records, and adding it changed no count, so the final string leaves it out. For the procedure I combined venipuncture, blood sampling, phlebotomy and needle procedure with truncation. The intervention concept was the most important to get right. The device most often studied is sold under the brand name Buzzy, but some authors describe it only by its mechanism, so I combined vibration, Buzzy, external cold and vapocoolant, the last to capture studies that compare cold sprays with the device. The outcome concept was simply pain, because the pain literature indexes the word consistently.

What this page is doingExplaining why each synonym was chosen, including the spelling test and the brand name, is what turns a list of keywords into a strategy. Search rubrics usually reward the reasoning behind the terms as much as the terms themselves.

The Search, Step by Step

The table below records each step of the PubMed search and the number of records it returned. Limits were added only after the concepts were combined, so their effect can be seen separately from the effect of the terms.

The largest drop came from adding the intervention concept, which narrowed nearly five thousand records about children and needle procedures to sixty. The outcome concept removed only one record, which suggests that almost every study of the device measures pain, as expected. Limiting to the last ten years and to English removed about a quarter of the remaining records. The final publication type limit kept randomized trials plus systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis, the designs best suited to an intervention question.

Step	Search string or limit	Records
1	(child* OR pediatric) AND (venipuncture OR blood sampling OR phlebotomy OR needle procedure*)	4,993
2	Step 1 AND (vibration OR Buzzy OR external cold OR vapocoolant)	60
3	Step 2 AND pain	59
4	Step 3 limited to publication years 2016 to 2026 and English language	45
5	Step 4 filtered by publication type to trials, reviews and meta-analyses	33

What this page is doingA search table with counts at every step is the single feature that makes a search repeatable. The writer also interprets the counts, which most students skip; noticing that the outcome term removed almost nothing tells the mentor the writer is thinking about the literature, not just copying a search history.

Screening the Results

I screened the 33 records in two stages. At the title and abstract stage I excluded studies of infants or adolescents only, studies of intramuscular injections or vaccinations rather than venipuncture or intravenous access, and conference abstracts. That left fourteen records. I then read the full text of each and kept studies that enrolled at least some children within or near my age range, used a cold and vibration device, and reported a pain outcome. Six studies met the criteria: one systematic review with meta-analysis and five randomized trials.

The systematic review by Ballard et al. (2019) pooled randomized trials of the device in children aged three to eighteen and is the most useful single source, because it summarizes earlier trials and rates the quality of the evidence. Among the newer trials, Zhou et al. (2025) randomized 130 children aged two to seven to four groups that compared cold, vibration and both together with a control, and Lescop et al. (2021) compared the device with a topical anesthetic in a non-inferiority design. These studies will be appraised in the following modules.

What this page is doingReporting exclusion reasons at each stage shows a defensible screening process. The writer also previews which studies will be appraised and why, which ties the search to the rest of the course and shows the mentor where the project is heading.

Qualitative and Hand Searching

Because the next modules ask for appraisal of both quantitative and qualitative research, I ran a second, simpler search for qualitative studies of children's and parents' experiences of repeated needle procedures in chronic illness. The most relevant result was a Norwegian study by Sørensen et al. (2021), who interviewed children with rheumatic diseases and their parents about regular needle injections at home. It does not test an intervention, but it describes the population and the experience behind my question, which is what qualitative evidence contributes to an intervention project.

Finally, I read through the citations at the end of the meta-analysis and of the two newest trials, looking for anything the database had missed. This found no additional trials that met my criteria, which suggests that the database search captured the main literature. I also ran the same five steps as a check two days later and got identical counts, which confirms that the table can be reproduced as long as the date of the search is reported with it. A second nurse on my unit agreed to run the final string independently, and the result matched mine, which is a simple test of repeatability that any student can borrow. Repeating a search with a colleague also exposes typing errors in long Boolean strings, which are easy to miss when the person who wrote the string is the only one who checks it. I also checked the Cochrane review of psychological interventions for children's needle pain by Birnie et al. (2018), which does not include the device but provides the evidence base for the distraction used in my comparison group.

What this page is doingSearching for a qualitative study on purpose, and hand searching reference lists, are both steps that research course rubrics often list under thoroughness. The writer explains why each extra search was done rather than presenting it as routine.

Reflection on the Search

Two lessons came from documenting the search. First, the brand name mattered: a search that used only vibration and cold missed two trials whose abstracts said Buzzy and little else. Second, the limits I added for convenience have costs. Restricting to English may have excluded trials from countries where the device is widely studied, and restricting by date excluded older trials that the systematic review already covers. Both choices are defensible for a course project, but they are limitations I will state when I report the findings. The strategy is now written down, and if I repeat it in six months I will be able to tell exactly what has been added to the literature.

References

Ballard, A., Khadra, C., Adler, S., Trottier, E. D., & Le May, S. (2019). Efficacy of the Buzzy device for pain management during needle-related procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 35(6), 532-543. https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000000690

Birnie, K. A., Noel, M., Chambers, C. T., Uman, L. S., & Parker, J. A. (2018). Psychological interventions for needle-related procedural pain and distress in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2018(10), Article CD005179. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005179.pub4

Lescop, K., Joret, I., Delbos, P., Briend-Godet, V., Blanchi, S., Brechet, C., Galivel-Voisine, A., Coudol, S., Volteau, C., Riche, V.-P., & Cartron, E. (2021). The effectiveness of the Buzzy device to reduce or prevent pain in children undergoing needle-related procedures: The results from a prospective, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 113, 103803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103803

Sørensen, K., Skirbekk, H., Kvarstein, G., & Wøien, H. (2021). I don't want to think about it: A qualitative study of children (6-18 years) with rheumatic diseases and parents' experiences with regular needle injections at home. Pediatric Rheumatology, 19(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12969-021-00495-4

Stillwell, S. B., Fineout-Overholt, E., Melnyk, B. M., & Williamson, K. M. (2010). Evidence-based practice, step by step: Searching for the evidence. American Journal of Nursing, 110(5), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000372071.24134.7e

Zhou, Z.-Y., Hu, L.-Y., Wang, M.-L., Li, S.-Q., & Zhou, L.-S. (2025). Effects of cold and vibration on venipuncture pain management in children aged 2-7 years old: Randomized controlled trial. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 8, e67918. https://doi.org/10.2196/67918

Reading the NUR 4190 Module 2 assignment instructions

Module 2 of NUR-4190 typically asks you to search the literature for your PICOT question and document how you did it. Directions in most terms ask which databases you used, which keywords and subject headings you chose, how you combined them, which limits you applied and why, how many results each step returned, and which studies you selected for later appraisal. Many sections want a table or search history and a short list of the articles you will use. TESU students reach CINAHL and other licensed databases through the library resources linked in myEdison, and PubMed is free to anyone, so check which databases your mentor expects. Record your searches as you run them; reconstructing counts afterward rarely works and mentors notice.

Inside the NUR 4190 Module 2 example

The example restates the PICOT question first so the reader can check every search term against it. A section on concepts explains how each PICOT element was expanded into a set of synonyms, including the British spelling and the device's brand name, and why the comparison was left out. The search table shows five steps with real PubMed counts and is followed by a paragraph that interprets them. The screening section reports exclusion reasons at the title and abstract stage and the full text stage, ending with six studies. A separate qualitative search and a hand search of reference lists are explained. The reflection notes what the brand name taught the writer and what the language and date limits may have cost.

NUR 4190 Module 2 rubric: what earns full marks

Search strategy papers are generally marked on the link between the PICOT question and the search terms, the use of Boolean operators and limits, documentation of results, the quality and relevance of the studies selected, and writing and APA. Mentors give the most weight to documentation and reasoning: a search that cannot be repeated, or one that lists terms with no explanation, will usually land in a lower band even if it found good studies. Evidence of appropriate study designs for your question type often counts toward the selection row. Many rubrics also reward a brief evaluation of the search, such as noting what the limits may have excluded. Format the search table so that the mentor can follow each step without reading the text.

NUR 4190 Module 2 help: mistakes that cost marks

Students lose marks here by listing articles without showing how they were found, or by reporting one final count with no steps. Another frequent issue is searching the whole PICOT question as a sentence, which databases handle poorly. Use concepts joined with AND and synonyms joined with OR. Limits applied too early can hide useful studies, so add them last and report each one. Make sure the studies you select match your question type; an intervention question needs trials and reviews, not only opinion pieces. If the search returns too few results, widen the population or remove the outcome term. If you need a search strategy paper built around your own question, the desk can draft one and document the steps.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

More NUR 4190 and Bachelor of Science in Nursing sample papers

NUR 4190 Module 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NUR 4190 Module 2 sample paper?

The complete literature search paper is above, with its search table, screening steps, references and margin notes. It follows a pediatric venipuncture question; reuse its structure and run your own searches so your counts are real and dated.

Which databases should I search for NUR-4190?

CINAHL and PubMed are the usual pair for nursing questions, and the Cochrane Library is worth checking for systematic reviews. Your mentor may name required databases, so read the directions. Report each database separately, because the same terms return different counts in each one.

Do I need to report the number of results at each step?

Yes, in most sections. Counts at each step show how your terms and limits shaped the results and make the search repeatable. A table is the clearest way to present them, followed by a sentence or two explaining the biggest changes.

How many studies should I select from my search?

Follow the directions; many sections ask for five to eight studies, including at least one quantitative and one qualitative study for later appraisal. Pick studies whose patients and interventions match your question closely, and add a systematic review when one is available.

Should I use MeSH or CINAHL subject headings?

Subject headings improve a search because they capture articles that use different words for the same idea. Many students combine headings with keywords for each concept. If your directions mention subject headings, show which ones you used and how they were combined.