A tree number copied from a vocabulary browser can look like a permanent definition. In a health-literature search note, the concept’s identity and the reason for choosing it matter more than an unexplained number. Preserve both so the strategy remains understandable when the vocabulary changes.
NLM’s MeSH documentation explains that a descriptor can occupy several tree positions and that the numbers locate it in a hierarchy. Those numbers can change as the vocabulary is revised. The MeSH home page also identifies vocabulary editions; record the edition you actually consult.
Save the concept and the decision
Keep the descriptor name, its record identifier where supplied, the edition, relevant broader or narrower terms, and your inclusion decision. If several tree positions matter, note why each helps answer the research question. A copied screenshot without those explanations may preserve appearance while losing the searcher’s reasoning.
For a hypothetical methods search, an editor might consider a broad subject and one specialised branch. Write which branch fits the question and which would introduce unrelated records. This is a planning exercise, not a claim that a particular search has been run or validated.
Recheck after a vocabulary change
When reusing an older strategy, find the concept in the edition now being used. Compare the label and placement with the saved note. A changed location does not automatically mean the old search was wrong, but it creates a decision that should be documented. Retain the prior strategy rather than silently replacing it.
Likewise, two similar-looking number fragments should not be used to infer a shared biological or clinical property. A vocabulary arrangement supports retrieval. A statement about how diseases, organisms or interventions relate requires evidence appropriate to that claim.
Carry the reasoning into the search log
The final note should let another reader distinguish the research question, the controlled-vocabulary choice and the query eventually executed. Free-text terms may also be needed for the task; a MeSH note alone is not proof of exhaustive retrieval. This article addresses search documentation only and makes no diagnosis, treatment comparison or claim about a named study’s results.
Primary documentation read 21 October 2026. Workflow suggestions are editorial; no clinical study or patient decision is evaluated here.
Sources: Primary resource documentation; NLM vocabulary documentation. Related discussion: health information source quality.
Leave a Reply