Is “Nurse” Necessary? Questioning Redundancies in Breastfeeding Research Searches

BACKGROUND: 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. RESEARCH AIM: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.