Systematic Review Search Strategy Template
The term register, the syntax for every platform, and the dated log that turns a search into something another reviewer can run.
Free download · No account needed
Search Strategy
1. [Database name]
Platform [interface, e.g. Ovid, Embase.com, EBSCOhost]
Database segment [as the platform reports it]
Date run [the calendar date]
Records retrieved [the platform's own count, before deduplication]
1 exp [Controlled vocabulary term]/ 2 ([free text] or [synonym*] or "[phrase]").ti,ab,kf. 3 1 or 2 4 exp [Controlled vocabulary term]/ 5 ([free text] or [synonym*]).ti,ab,kf. 6 4 or 5 7 (([concept A terms]) adj3 ([concept B terms])).ti,ab,kf. 8 "[named programme]".ti,ab,kf. 9 7 or 8 10 3 and 6 and 9 11 limit 10 to [stated limit]
Pasted out of the platform's own search history, never retyped. Where an export exists, the export is the record and this page is the transcription.
2. [Next database]
One section per source, including every register, every citation search and every hand search.
The pack is six files and one rule. Three documents hold the search: the strategy pasted per database, the reasoning behind every term and every limit, and a page on which of those facts expire and when. Three sheets hold the record: a term register scored against a seed set, a log with one row per database per run, and a yield sheet showing what each source actually bought. The rule is that nothing gets retyped. The protocol itself, registered before the first search runs, is the protocol registration pack.
Every sheet ships filled in for one illustrative review of manager mental-health training and sickness absence. Seven sources returned 4,833 records across two runs, deduplicating to 2,955 and ending in 19 included studies. CINAHL contributed 196 unique abstracts and no included studies. Citation searching contributed 7 unique records and 2 included studies. Those two rows are the argument for the yield sheet, and no reference manager can produce either of them once the records are imported.
PRISMA-S asks for each strategy copied and pasted exactly as run, the date of the last search, and the records identified from each source. A concept grid produces none of the three, because all three are properties of an event. Open the pack in River and the log gets written while the search runs. Or download the Word documents and CSV sheets and fill them in yourself, then hand the export to the screening pack, which turns those decisions into the PRISMA flow, and the extraction table once screening is done.
What's in the pack
Search Strategy
Every string pasted out of the platform it ran on, with the database segment, the date and the count above it, ready to export as a supplementary file.
Search Log sheet
One row per database per run, carrying the pasted string, the platform, the date, the limit and the count. A re-run appends a row rather than editing one.
Yield by Database sheet
Retrieved, unique, full text and included per source, plus unique records per included study, so a database that cost 196 abstracts and returned nothing says so.
Term Register sheet
Every term and every whole-strategy version scored against your seed set, with what each block cost in records and what it bought in retrieved seeds.
Rationale Note
Why each source, why each dropped synonym block, and why each limit, including the limits you deliberately did not apply, which read as omissions when left unstated.
How This Search Is Documented
The four facts that stop being recoverable the moment records are exported, which file each one lives in, and the order the files get written.
Record the search as run
The standing space rule every prompt reads first. Cochrane's own instruction is that strategies should not be re-typed, because this can introduce errors.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or download it
Open the pack in River and the agent builds the register with you, or download the blank Word documents and CSV sheets instantly.
- 2
Send the question and the seed set
Your review question, the databases and platforms you can actually reach, and five to fifteen papers you already know belong in the review.
- 3
Build and peer review one strategy
The register gets scored against the seed set, then one strategy is written and reviewed before translation to any other platform, because an error found after translation has to be found once per database.
- 4
Log every run as it happens
Paste the string, the date and the count into the log before exporting anything, because two of those three stop existing the moment records reach a reference manager.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. Download the whole pack as Word documents and CSV sheets with no signup and no credit card. Edit with AI is a separate, optional path that has the agent build the register and write the strategies with you. The template library holds the rest of the packs.
What format are the downloaded files?
Word documents (.docx) for the three documents and the rule, and CSV (.csv) for the three sheets, in one zip. They open natively in Word, Pages, Google Docs, Excel, Numbers and Sheets with nothing to convert. Inside River the same content opens as live Docs and Sheets.
What does 'Edit with AI' actually do?
It creates a free River account and installs this exact pack as a private workspace. It opens asking for your review question, your databases and your seed set, then builds the term register against those papers and writes one strategy for peer review before translating it.
Does River run the searches for me?
No. The strings are written here and executed in the platform your institution licenses, which is the only place a search history export exists. What comes back into the space is the pasted string, the date and the count, and those three are what the reporting standard asks for.
Does this deduplicate my records?
No, and the sheets assume something else does. Yield by Database records the unique count per source and the order deduplication ran in, because that order decides the column. The duplicate merge plan covers a merged library where a citation manager's own matching is the risk.
Is this only for health reviews?
No. The worked example uses MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO because most readers of this query work there, and the structure is identical for ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, Business Source Premier or a legal database. Controlled vocabulary differs per database, which the register already handles as a column.
How is this different from a search strategy template?
A template gives you a concept grid, which is the search you meant to run. Reviews with a librarian as an author still report a reproducible search only 64 per cent of the time. The record is what is missing: pasted string, date, count per source. The synthesis writer takes over once screening ends.
Write down the search while it still exists
Send your review question, your databases and the papers you already know belong in the review. The register comes back scored against them.
Edit with AI