Search strategy planning

Systematic Review Boolean Search Planning Worksheet

A practical worksheet for turning a review question into Boolean logic, checking how each term behaves, and translating the strategy for a named database before you run it. The same planning model works for clinical, social-science, and policy reviews alike.

Build Your Protocol Foundation →
Explore the 13-Course Meta-Journey

MetaSyn Academy › Free systematic review and meta-analysis templates › Systematic review search strategy and study identification › Systematic Review Boolean Search Planning Worksheet

By Dr. Esmaeel Saeedy Robat, Founder of MetaSyn Academy · Published meta-analyst (Nature Human Behaviour, 2026) · Evidence checked MONTH YEAR

Boolean planning resource

Design the logic before translating the syntax

A Boolean strategy is a model of searchable concepts, not a single string that can be pasted unchanged into every database. This worksheet separates the stable logic, OR within concepts and AND between concepts, from the platform-specific details that must be checked and documented.

Cochrane’s conduct standards call for database strategies that combine controlled vocabulary and free-text terms and are customized for each database. PRESS peer review separately checks the translation of the question, operators, headings, text words, syntax, and limits.1,3

Corrected PubMed rule: PubMed supports proximity searching in Title, Title/Abstract, and Affiliation with "search terms"[field:~N]. A wildcard inside that expression is incompatible with proximity searching; PubMed ignores the proximity operator when a wildcard is present.5
Methodological boundary: this worksheet plans and quality-checks logic. It does not generate, execute, validate, or automatically translate a search, and it cannot promise a universal syntax or a particular level of recall.
Logic in one view

Six decisions to make explicitly

  1. Concepts: search only the question elements needed to retrieve the eligible evidence.
  2. Synonyms: join equivalent terms within a concept with OR.
  3. Concept relationships: join distinct concepts with AND.
  4. Exclusions: use NOT sparingly because it can remove relevant records unexpectedly.
  5. Term behaviour: label phrases, truncation, wildcards, proximity, fields, and subject headings.
  6. Translation: preserve logical intent while adapting operators and fields to each current platform.
The problem behind the query

Boolean errors often look plausible

A query can run without an error message and still express the wrong evidence set. A missing parenthesis can change operator precedence; an over-broad truncation can retrieve unrelated word families; a phrase can be interpreted differently across platforms; a field restriction can hide relevant indexing; and a NOT statement can silently remove records that contain both the wanted and excluded idea. These are methodological errors because they change which records can enter the review.

The safest planning unit is the concept block. Within a block, subject headings and text-word variants usually describe the same searchable idea and are combined with OR. Distinct concepts are then combined with AND. The logic remains stable while syntax is translated for a named database-platform combination. Cochrane MECIR C32–C33 applies this principle specifically to Cochrane intervention reviews; PRESS then asks a peer reviewer to examine the translation, operators, headings, text words, syntax, spelling, and limits.1,3

Boolean concept-block architecture Synonyms are combined with OR inside two concept blocks, and the blocks are combined with AND. Model the concepts before the platform syntax Concept A Concept B headingsynonymvariant headingsynonymvariant OR OR AND Stable logic → named platform translation → executed-query inspection
OR broadens within a concept; AND requires the record to represent both concepts. The diagram is a logic model, not platform-ready syntax.

Parentheses make the model explicit

Parentheses group the OR-connected terms before concept blocks are joined. Without them, a platform’s precedence rules may combine terms in an unintended order. Write and inspect the logic as separate blocks even if an interface displays a line-by-line history. Keep a human-readable version beside the executed string so reviewers can see the intended relationships rather than infer them from punctuation.

Terms carry behaviors, not just words

For every free-text term, record whether it is searched as a phrase, truncated form, wildcard pattern, proximity expression, or exact field-restricted term. The behavior must be justified. Truncation can capture inflections but may also introduce unrelated roots. Proximity can retain flexible word order while limiting distance, but its operator, counting rule, directionality, compatible fields, and interaction with wildcards vary by platform. PubMed’s current syntax is "search terms"[field:~N] for supported fields; including a wildcard in the expression causes the proximity operator to be ignored.5

Controlled vocabulary is not a synonym list

A subject heading represents an indexing concept within a particular vocabulary and release. Decisions about explosion, focus, subheadings, and mapping belong to the database-platform version. Text words complement headings by retrieving unindexed records and language not captured by the thesaurus. Copying a heading label into another database without checking its vocabulary does not translate the concept.

Platform-aware quality control

Translate intent, then verify behavior

A master logic model should remain readable and source-neutral. Translation begins only after a target database and platform are named. Check the current official help for fields, phrase searching, truncation, wildcard characters, proximity, automatic term mapping, stop words, nesting limits, and filters. Then inspect the executed-query history rather than assuming the pasted query was interpreted literally.

Translation and verification loop A master logic model branches to named platform versions, which are inspected, tested, corrected, and frozen. Master logic concepts + term intent Database + Platform A Database + Platform B Database + Platform C Verification loop inspect interpretationtest benchmark recordscorrect and freeze version
Translation tools may assist, but the verified platform version—not the automated output—is the executable record.

The worksheet below preserves the chain from term provenance to platform translation and error correction. Its purpose is to make reasoning inspectable. It does not score a strategy or claim that a passing checklist proves adequate recall.

Editable worksheet

Systematic Review Boolean Search Planner

Save stores the worksheet only in this browser. Copy creates a labelled text record for your controlled project files.

1. Review and search boundary

2. Concept blocks and term provenance

Concept blockControlled vocabularyFree-text terms and variantsTerm source and decision note

3. Term behaviour plan

Term or familyTechniquePlanned expressionRisk and test

Test both the intended match and plausible unwanted matches. Truncation can improve variant coverage but can also introduce irrelevant stems; proximity can improve contextual precision but behaves differently across platforms.

4. Boolean assembly

5. Platform translation record

Database and platformExact translated query or saved-search IDSyntax changesHelp page and date checked

6. Test results and error log

Test or errorExpected behaviourObserved resultDecision and revision

7. Logic QA

Illustrative logic—not a validated query

For a review of digital interventions for chronic insomnia, one starting model is (insomnia terms) AND (digital intervention terms). Within the first block, a subject heading can be ORed with spelling and phrase variants. Within the second, terms such as online, internet, app, computerized, and digital need contextual testing. In PubMed, an illustrative proximity form is "digital intervention"[Title/Abstract:~3]; do not add a wildcard inside the quoted expression because the proximity operator would be ignored.5

No browser-local worksheet has been saved during this session.

Pair the worksheet with the syntax guide

Use this worksheet to retain decisions and tests. Use the paired guide to understand operator behaviour and the reasons syntax must be translated rather than copied.

Boolean Search Strategies for Systematic ReviewsLearn AND, OR, NOT, nesting, phrases, truncation, proximity, fields, and platform differences. Systematic review search strategy and study identificationReturn to the H02 collection and related working resources.

Get every MetaSyn template free, including this one.

Leave your email and I’ll send this resource as an editable Word file and a printable PDF, plus access to the smart online version. You’ll also get every new template as it’s finished. No noise, just the resources.

Reference list

References and evidence scope

This worksheet distinguishes conduct guidance, peer-review guidance, reporting guidance, and platform help. Operator examples are platform-labelled and must be checked against the current interface before execution.

  1. Cochrane. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR): conduct standards C32–C36. Current online standards; accessed 23 July 2026. MECIR Manual.
  2. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. Searching for and selecting studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.5. 2024. Chapter 4.
  3. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;75:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.
  4. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
  5. U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed User Guide: Proximity searching. Current online help; accessed 23 July 2026. PubMed Help.
  6. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2018;106(4):531–541. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.283.
  7. MacDonald H, Metzendorf MI, Featherstone R, et al. A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2024;20(3):e1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1433.
Scope note: examples explain search logic; they are not validated filters or final strategies. Current official help remains authoritative for syntax, fields, precedence, truncation, wildcards, proximity, phrase processing, and controlled-vocabulary versions.