Is "Nurse" Necessary? Questioning Redundancies in Breastfeeding Research Searches

Rigorous systematic reviews in breastfeeding research depend on precise and transparent search strategies. However, the term nursing has dual meaning-referring both to breastfeeding and to the nursing profession-creating potential ambiguity in literature searches.

To examine the methodological impact of including the terms nurse and nursing in breastfeeding-related search strategies, and to highlight implications for research quality and policy development.

During a global systematic review on partner support and breastfeeding self-efficacy, seven databases were searched from inception to January 2025. Screening revealed a substantial number of irrelevant records related to the nursing profession. A modified search excluding the truncation "nurs" from titles and abstracts was subsequently conducted in Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) and Embase to assess its impact on retrieval volume and relevance.

Initial searches retrieved 21,214 records, with considerable screening burden attributable to irrelevant nursing-profession literature. When "nurs*" was excluded, records in Medline Complete and Embase substantially decreased by 65% and 63%, respectively, without observed loss of relevant breastfeeding studies. The findings demonstrate that ambiguous terminology can substantially inflate retrievals without enhancing comprehensiveness.

Routine inclusion of nurse and nursing in breastfeeding searches may reduce efficiency and should be carefully considered in relation to the review context.Implications for Practice and Policy:Precision in search terminology is essential to maintain methodological rigor. Researchers, librarians, editors, and peer reviewers should critically evaluate term selection and promote validated, breastfeeding-specific search filters to strengthen evidence informing lactation policy and clinical practice.