Skip to main content
Manusights homeLibrary

Build a literature search you can explain

Turn a question into a search record a colleague can inspect, rerun and challenge. Start with the worksheet, then use the guide to check the decisions behind it.

Free, no sign-up · Sources checked · Guide edition 2026.09.11-guide1 · How to use it · Sources

Literature search builder

Turn your question into searches you can run and rerun

Group alternative terms into concepts. The builder writes the search string for PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, then keeps the retrieval test and run log that make the search repeatable.

Worked example, fictional. A scoping search on sleep interventions for rotating-shift nurses. Edit any term to see every string change, or start with your own question.

Question and boundaries

Write what the search must support and what is out of scope, before you see results.

Concepts and alternative terms

One block per idea. Terms inside a block are joined with OR; blocks are joined with AND.

Concept 1: Population

Alternative termsSynonyms, spellings and word forms for this one idea. Use * to truncate, e.g. nurs*.
  • nurs*
  • nursing staff
  • Nurses (MeSH)

Concept 2: Schedule

Alternative termsSynonyms, spellings and word forms for this one idea. Use * to truncate, e.g. nurs*.
  • shift work
  • night shift
  • rotating shift
  • night duty
  • Shift Work Schedule (MeSH)

Concept 3: Outcome

Alternative termsSynonyms, spellings and word forms for this one idea. Use * to truncate, e.g. nurs*.
  • sleep
  • insomnia
  • Sleep Wake Disorders (MeSH)

Databases

Syntax differs by platform. Save the exact string you run on each one.

Fields searched: PubMed, Title/Abstract [tiab]; MeSH [mh] for subject headings. Scopus, TITLE-ABS-KEY (title, abstract, keywords). Web of Science, TS= (topic). Platform help: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science.

Retrieval test

List papers you already know are relevant, found independently of this search. Mark whether each search finds them, and explain any miss.

Enter a PMID or DOI to test it in PubMed.

Enter a PMID or DOI to test it in PubMed.

Run log

Record when you ran each string, how many records it returned, and any limits.

Your search record

3 concepts, 11 terms2 known papers tested

PubMedRun in PubMed

(nurs*[tiab] OR "nursing staff"[tiab] OR "Nurses"[mh]) AND ("shift work"[tiab] OR "night shift"[tiab] OR "rotating shift"[tiab] OR "night duty"[tiab] OR "Shift Work Schedule"[mh]) AND (sleep[tiab] OR insomnia[tiab] OR "Sleep Wake Disorders"[mh])

Scopus

TITLE-ABS-KEY(nurs* OR "nursing staff" OR Nurses) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("shift work" OR "night shift" OR "rotating shift" OR "night duty" OR "Shift Work Schedule") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(sleep OR insomnia OR "Sleep Wake Disorders")

Web of Science

TS=(nurs* OR "nursing staff" OR Nurses) AND TS=("shift work" OR "night shift" OR "rotating shift" OR "night duty" OR "Shift Work Schedule") AND TS=(sleep OR insomnia OR "Sleep Wake Disorders")

Full record as text

Literature search record Question: Which interventions address sleep in rotating-shift nurses? Scope and exclusions: Initial scoping only; exclude students and fixed daytime schedules. Concepts and terms - Population: nurs*; nursing staff; Nurses (subject heading) - Schedule: shift work; night shift; rotating shift; night duty; Shift Work Schedule (subject heading) - Outcome: sleep; insomnia; Sleep Wake Disorders (subject heading) Search strings PubMed: (nurs*[tiab] OR "nursing staff"[tiab] OR "Nurses"[mh]) AND ("shift work"[tiab] OR "night shift"[tiab] OR "rotating shift"[tiab] OR "night duty"[tiab] OR "Shift Work Schedule"[mh]) AND (sleep[tiab] OR insomnia[tiab] OR "Sleep Wake Disorders"[mh]) Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY(nurs* OR "nursing staff" OR Nurses) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY("shift work" OR "night shift" OR "rotating shift" OR "night duty" OR "Shift Work Schedule") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(sleep OR insomnia OR "Sleep Wake Disorders") Web of Science: TS=(nurs* OR "nursing staff" OR Nurses) AND TS=("shift work" OR "night shift" OR "rotating shift" OR "night duty" OR "Shift Work Schedule") AND TS=(sleep OR insomnia OR "Sleep Wake Disorders") Retrieval test (known relevant papers) - Known paper A (fictional; enter a real PMID or DOI to test it): PubMed found, Scopus unchecked, Web of Science unchecked - Known paper B (fictional): PubMed missed, Scopus unchecked, Web of Science unchecked. Miss explained: Abstract says "night duty"; added that term as version 2. Responsible for rerunning: Search lead, before screening closes Built with the Manusights literature search builder (https://manusights.com/resources/literature-search-strategy). Check each string on the platform before relying on it; an information specialist should review searches for an evidence synthesis.

Use and limits

A planning aid, not a validated systematic-review search. Database syntax differs. Ask an information specialist to review searches intended to support an evidence synthesis.

Nothing you type leaves this page or is saved. Printable worksheet (PDF, 2 pages)

Go deeper

Step 1

Decide what the search must support

A background scan and a systematic review need different methods. Write the purpose before choosing filters. These planning steps are Manusights guidance, not a certification checklist.

Name the decision
Record the population or setting, the phenomenon or intervention, and the decision the evidence will inform. Define exclusions before reading results so inconvenient findings are not quietly filtered out.
Choose sources by coverage
List which disciplines and evidence types each source covers. Note what you cannot access. One familiar database is not evidence that a cross-disciplinary question has been covered.

Step 2

Test the query, not just the result count

PubMed uses uppercase Boolean operators. Field tags, quoted phrases and wildcards can change automatic term mapping. Inspect Search Details and warnings rather than assuming the typed query is the executed query.

Separate concepts from syntax
Build alternatives within each concept first. Translate the structure into each platform's syntax; do not paste one database's field codes into another.
Keep a small test set
Choose known relevant papers for different parts of the question. Investigate misses: absent database coverage, a missing synonym, a restrictive field or a filter. Finding this set is a diagnostic, not proof of completeness.

Check the source

Step 3

A useful miss is one you can explain

Fictional troubleshooting example: a question about shift work and sleep misses a known paper when the query requires the phrase 'night shift'. The paper's abstract uses 'rotating schedules'.

Make one controlled change
Add the alternative wording to that concept, rerun the search and record what changed. Check whether new irrelevant meanings dominate. Do not report an invented retrieval count.
Keep the limitation
If the paper is not in the database at all, editing synonyms cannot fix that gap. Record an additional source or citation-search step, with its own method and date.

Step 4

Preserve the search as an inspectable record

PRISMA-S provides reporting guidance for evidence-synthesis searches. Complete reporting helps others inspect a search; it does not establish that the methods were adequate.

Save the exact run
Keep the database and platform, executed query, filters and their rationale, run date, result count and exported file name. Document later amendments instead of replacing the original.
Make the handoff explicit
Give the next person the search record, source list, known misses and unresolved questions. For a formal review, plan method review and search updates within the review protocol rather than using an arbitrary number of papers as a stopping rule.

Check the source

Common questions

Does this worksheet make a search systematic?

No. It documents decisions. A systematic review also needs an appropriate protocol, source coverage, selection methods and other review procedures. Use the relevant methodological and reporting standards.

Can I use the same query in every database?

Reuse the concept structure, then translate and test each platform's syntax and vocabulary. Keep a separate record of each executed search.

When can I stop?

For an exploratory search, record the practical purpose and remaining gaps. For an evidence synthesis, follow the planned methods and update strategy. A large result count or recovery of known papers is not a completeness test.

Sources and evidence

These checked sections support the specific statements identified below. The workflow and fictional examples are Manusights teaching material, not publisher instructions or evidence of institutional review. The check date is not a policy effective date.

  • NLM: PubMed User Guide

    Supports the PubMed syntax and query-translation guidance, not the completeness of a proposed search.

    Section: Searching for a phrase; Combining search terms; Search Details. Checked 2026-09-11.

  • Rethlefsen et al.: PRISMA-S (2021)

    A 16-item reporting extension for literature searches in evidence syntheses, not a search-quality approval.

    Section: Abstract; search strategies; dates of searches. Checked 2026-09-11.

What changed in this edition?

2026-09-11: Replaced the generic starter query and stopping-rule claims with a testable search record and an explicitly fictional troubleshooting example. The underlying worksheet PDF was not revised in this guide edition.

Recheck destination requirements before relying on them. Report a correction with the page, disputed statement and supporting source. Original Manusights educational text is available under CC BY 4.0 reuse terms; third-party material retains its own terms.

Research behind this guide

The sources above set the current rules. These peer-reviewed papers are the research to cite alongside them.

  1. McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., et al. (2016). PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

    The guideline for peer reviewing a search strategy. Most experts it surveyed wanted the review after the MEDLINE search is drafted and before it is translated to other databases.

  2. 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

    Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection and Google Scholar together performed best, with 98.3% overall recall. The authors estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of the available relevant references.

  3. Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

    Tested 28 search systems: only half could be recommended for evidence synthesis without substantial caveats, and Google Scholar is not suitable as the principal search system.

Cite this resource

Citation formats

Free to use and cite, with attribution. See the reuse policy for what you may republish.

APA
Manusights. (2026). Build a literature search you can explain (Version 2026.09.11-guide1). https://manusights.com/resources/literature-search-strategy
MLA
Manusights. "Build a literature search you can explain." Research Library, version 2026.09.11-guide1, Sep 11, 2026, https://manusights.com/resources/literature-search-strategy.
Vancouver
Manusights. Build a literature search you can explain [Internet]. Version 2026.09.11-guide1. 2026 Sep 11. Available from: https://manusights.com/resources/literature-search-strategy

Next in project setup

Turn your sources into a dependable reference library.

Keep the search retraceable by organizing the material you found before drafting starts.