Search Five Databases Using Your PICOT Question For Each Dat ✓ Solved

Search five databases using your PICOT question. For each da

Search five databases using your PICOT question. For each database, record the number of relevant articles found (you may not find results in every database) and describe features you liked about that database. Include Library Search (similar to EBSCO) as one database to broaden results.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This assignment uses a sample PICOT question to demonstrate systematic searching across five databases and to record findings and database features. Sample PICOT used: In adults with stage 1–2 hypertension (P), does the DASH dietary pattern (I) compared with usual diet (C) reduce systolic blood pressure (O) within six months (T)? The databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL (via EBSCO), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Library Search (EBSCO Discovery Service). Search terms included "DASH diet," "Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension," "hypertension," "blood pressure," "clinical trial," and Boolean combinations. Filters: English language, adults, clinical trials/systematic reviews, publication date within last 20 years. Search strategies followed best-practice guidance for systematic searches (Bramer et al., 2018; Moher et al., 2009).

Methods

Each database was searched using a consistent core strategy adapted to the database’s indexing and syntax. Keywords and subject headings (MeSH in PubMed; Emtree in Embase; CINAHL Headings) were combined with Boolean operators: ("DASH" OR "Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension") AND ("hypertension" OR "blood pressure") AND ("trial" OR "randomized" OR "systematic review"). Limits applied: adults (≥18 years), English, human studies, 2004–2024. Results were screened by title and abstract to estimate the number of directly relevant clinical trials or systematic reviews addressing the PICOT.

Results by Database

1. PubMed

Findings: Approximately 24 relevant articles (randomized controlled trials, secondary analyses, and systematic reviews) directly matched the PICOT criteria. PubMed returned classic DASH trial reports and later randomized trials and meta-analyses (Sacks et al., 2001). Features liked: comprehensive biomedical coverage, precise MeSH indexing that improves sensitivity and specificity, advanced filters for study type and clinical queries, and integrated links to full text and related articles (National Library of Medicine). PubMed’s clinical queries and citation mapping made it easy to find foundational trials and follow-up analyses (NLM, PubMed).

2. CINAHL (via EBSCO)

Findings: Approximately 15 relevant nursing and allied health articles, including practice-focused trials and dietary intervention studies. Features liked: strong coverage of nursing, allied health, and practice-implementation literature; intuitive EBSCO interface with useful subject headings (CINAHL Headings); and practical limiters tailored for point-of-care searches (EBSCO information). CINAHL captured implementation studies and practice reports less prominent in PubMed, making it useful for translating evidence into clinical practice.

3. Embase

Findings: Approximately 30 relevant records were found, including additional European trials and conference abstracts not indexed in PubMed. Features liked: extensive international coverage, comprehensive Emtree indexing, and good retrieval of conference literature and drug/nutrition-related records. Embase’s additional indexing improved recall and identified studies missed in PubMed, consistent with recommendations to search multiple databases for comprehensive retrieval (Higgins et al., Cochrane Handbook).

4. Cochrane Library

Findings: About 5 directly relevant high-quality systematic reviews and a small number of randomized trials indexed in Cochrane CENTRAL. Features liked: high-quality, curated systematic reviews and CENTRAL’s focus on randomized controlled trials; the Cochrane reviews provided robust syntheses and risk-of-bias assessments useful for answering the PICOT (Cochrane Library). Cochrane’s transparency and methodological rigor aided rapid assessment of pooled evidence.

5. Library Search (EBSCO Discovery Service)

Findings: Approximately 42 relevant items were retrieved as Library Search aggregates journal subscriptions, institutional repositories, and EBSCO-indexed records. The broader pool included duplicates from other databases but also institutional theses, practice guidelines, and open-access trials not as easily found via single databases. Features liked: single-search convenience across multiple collections, relevance-ranked results, and an easy-to-use interface that mirrors EBSCO functionality. Library Search is especially helpful for students and clinicians exploring literature breadth before targeted database searches.

Discussion

Searching across five databases showed overlapping but distinct yields. Embase and Library Search retrieved additional items beyond PubMed because of wider international and grey literature coverage. Cochrane provided the best quality syntheses but fewer primary trials because it focuses on curated reviews and CENTRAL. CINAHL added practice-oriented evidence relevant to implementation of dietary interventions in clinical settings. Using subject headings (MeSH, Emtree, CINAHL Headings) plus keywords maximized retrieval (Bramer et al., 2018). In practice, a combination of PubMed + Embase + CINAHL + Cochrane + Library Search yielded the most comprehensive and clinically useful set of evidence, aligning with guidance that no single database is sufficient for exhaustive searches (Higgins et al., 2019).

Practical Recommendations

1. Start with a clear PICOT and translate terms into each database’s controlled vocabulary (MeSH, Emtree, CINAHL Headings). 2. Use Boolean logic and filters consistently, but adapt syntax for each interface. 3. Include a discovery service (Library Search) to identify institutional resources and grey literature. 4. Prioritize Cochrane for high-quality syntheses and use Embase to capture additional non–PubMed-indexed trials. 5. Consult a librarian early; librarian involvement improves search quality and reproducibility (Rethlefsen et al., 2014). Following PRISMA guidance ensures transparent reporting of search methods and results (Moher et al., 2009).

Conclusion

For the example PICOT on DASH diet and blood pressure, searching five databases identified a robust body of evidence: foundational trials (e.g., DASH), additional randomized trials, and syntheses supporting the diet’s efficacy (Sacks et al., 2001). Each database contributed unique value: PubMed for biomedical depth, Embase for additional international literature, CINAHL for practice perspectives, Cochrane for high-quality reviews, and Library Search for breadth and grey literature. Combining multiple sources and using best-practice search strategies yields the most reliable evidence base for clinical questions.

References

  • Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, et al. Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(1):3–10.
  • National Library of Medicine. About PubMed. National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed 2024).
  • EBSCO Information Services. CINAHL Complete: product overview. EBSCO. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/cinahl-complete (accessed 2024).
  • Elsevier. Embase: Database overview. https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research (accessed 2024).
  • The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/ (accessed 2024).
  • EBSCO. EBSCO Discovery Service / Library Search: overview. https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/ebsco-discovery-service (accessed 2024).
  • Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
  • Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and comprehensive method to develop literature searches for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2018;7:1–10.
  • Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of systematic reviews. JAMA. 2014;312(10):999–1000.
  • Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Wiley; 2019.

Related Assignments