Convert search strategies between database syntaxes. Paste your PubMed, Embase, or Cochrane search and translate field tags, truncation, and proximity operators to any other database.
Choose the database your search was originally written for. This tells the translator which syntax rules to recognize.
Paste your complete search strategy into the input box. The tool handles multi-line searches with numbered lines.
Choose the database you want to translate to. The tool converts field tags, truncation, and proximity operators.
Review the translated search, check any flagged terms (especially controlled vocabulary), and copy to clipboard.
MeSH, Emtree, and CINAHL Subject Headings are independently curated thesauri. A MeSH term like 'Neoplasms' maps to 'neoplasm' in Emtree but may have a different scope. Always verify controlled vocabulary translations using the target database's thesaurus browser.
PubMed does not support proximity searching. When translating from Embase (ADJn) or CINAHL (Nn) to PubMed, proximity operators must be replaced with phrase searching or expanded Boolean alternatives, which may affect sensitivity.
PubMed's [tiab] searches title and abstract as a combined field, while CINAHL requires separate TI and AB field codes. Embase uses .ti,ab. on Ovid. Always verify that the translated field tags search the equivalent content in the target database.
After translating, run the search in the target database and verify that known relevant studies (your test set) appear in the results. If key studies are missing, check for syntax errors or controlled vocabulary mismatches.
A search strategy translator addresses one of the most error-prone steps in systematic review methodology: adapting a search that was developed for one bibliographic database to the syntax and conventions of another. The PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., 2021) requires systematic reviews to search at least two databases, and Cochrane reviews typically search four or more, including MEDLINE (via PubMed or Ovid), Embase, CENTRAL, and at least one domain-specific database. Each of these platforms uses different field tags, truncation symbols, proximity operators, and controlled vocabularies. A PubMed search using [tiab] field tags, MeSH headings with the [Mesh] qualifier, and asterisk truncation will not execute correctly when pasted directly into Embase on Ovid, which expects .ti,ab. field codes, Emtree subject headings with the / qualifier, and ADJn proximity operators. This database search syntax tool automates the structural conversion of these elements, reducing the risk of syntax errors that could compromise the completeness of your literature retrieval. The Polyglot Search Translator developed by Bond University offers a complementary automated approach to cross-database conversion, though all automated outputs require manual verification of controlled vocabulary mappings and platform-specific operator support. Web of Science presents additional translation challenges because its Topic Search field (TS=) searches title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus simultaneously — a broader scope than PubMed's [tiab], which may affect precision when translating between the two platforms.
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Lefebvre et al., 2022) identifies search translation errors as a common source of bias in systematic reviews. When field tags are incorrectly mapped — for example, translating PubMed's [tiab] to a title-only search in CINAHL — the translated search may miss relevant studies indexed in the abstract but not the title. Similarly, proximity operators require careful handling: Embase's ADJ3 finds terms within three words of each other, Cochrane's NEAR/3 provides equivalent functionality, but PubMed has no proximity operator at all, requiring substitution with phrase searching or expanded Boolean alternatives. An Embase search converter must account for these asymmetries to maintain equivalent sensitivity across databases. The PRESS (Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies) guideline by McGowan et al. (2016) recommends that translated searches undergo the same peer-review scrutiny as the original, particularly for controlled vocabulary mapping and proximity operator substitution. CINAHL Subject Headings are independently maintained and distinct from both MeSH and Emtree, meaning that a term present in MeSH may have a different preferred heading or may not exist at all in the CINAHL thesaurus — each mapping requires individual verification through the CINAHL Headings browser.
Controlled vocabulary translation deserves special attention because MeSH (used by PubMed/MEDLINE), Emtree (used by Embase), and CINAHL Subject Headings are independently curated thesauri with different hierarchical structures and scope notes. A MeSH heading like "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" may map to "cognitive behavioral therapy" in Emtree, but the tree structures and explosion behavior may differ. Subject heading explosion — where a broad heading automatically includes all narrower terms beneath it in the hierarchy — operates differently across platforms: Embase distinguishes between exploding a heading and focusing it (restricting to articles where the term is a major topic), while MeSH subheadings in PubMed allow qualifier-based refinement such as /therapy or /diagnosis. Embase also supports floating subheadings, which apply a qualifier like "adverse drug reaction" across all Emtree headings simultaneously rather than attaching it to a specific descriptor. This tool flags controlled vocabulary terms for manual verification, which should be performed using each database's thesaurus browser. Before translating your search, ensure you have a well-constructed source strategy — our search strategy builder helps create comprehensive Boolean queries with concept mapping and synonym expansion for your primary database. If you are still formulating your research question, the PICO framework builder structures your question into searchable elements using the PICO, PECO, or SPIDER framework.
After translating and executing your searches across all target databases, the next critical step is identifying and removing duplicate records that appear in multiple database results. Our reference deduplication tool uses DOI matching, Jaccard title similarity, and author-year matching to detect overlapping citations, which typically account for 20-40% of combined search results. The deduplicated count feeds directly into the PRISMA flow diagram — generate yours using our PRISMA flow diagram generator to document the complete identification-to-inclusion pathway. Together, these tools form a connected workflow that supports the end-to-end search documentation standards expected by Cochrane, JBI, and the Campbell Collaboration.
Different bibliographic databases use different search syntax, field codes, and controlled vocabularies. A search that works in PubMed won't produce correct results when pasted directly into Embase or CINAHL. Systematic reviews require searching multiple databases (PRISMA 2020 requires at least two), so each search must be adapted to the target database's syntax while maintaining equivalent scope and sensitivity.
Key differences include: field tags (PubMed uses [tiab], Embase uses .ti,ab., CINAHL uses TI and AB as separate fields); truncation symbols (most use *, but some historically used $ or #); phrase searching (quotation marks are standard, but proximity operators vary: ADJ in Embase, NEAR in Cochrane, W/ in CINAHL); and controlled vocabulary (MeSH in PubMed, Emtree in Embase, CINAHL Subject Headings in CINAHL).
Controlled vocabulary terms (MeSH, Emtree, CINAHL Headings) cannot be directly translated because they are independently curated thesauri with different hierarchies and term definitions. A MeSH heading may not have an exact equivalent in Emtree. This tool flags controlled vocabulary terms for manual review — you should use each database's thesaurus browser to find the closest equivalent term.
Proximity operators find terms within a specified number of words of each other. PubMed does not support proximity searching. Embase (Ovid) uses ADJn (e.g., 'cognitive ADJ3 therapy' finds the terms within 3 words). Cochrane uses NEAR/n. CINAHL uses Nn (e.g., N3). Web of Science uses NEAR/n. Scopus uses W/n or PRE/n. When translating to PubMed, proximity operators must be replaced with phrase searching or Boolean alternatives.
After translation: (1) check the result count — it should be in a similar range to the source database; (2) verify that known relevant studies appear in the results; (3) review any flagged terms for manual verification, especially controlled vocabulary translations; (4) test a few individual search lines to ensure field tags are correctly applied. Having a medical librarian review translated searches is strongly recommended.
Each database uses different syntax for Boolean operators, field tags, truncation, proximity operators, and controlled vocabulary. A PubMed search using MeSH terms and [tiab] field tags will not work in Embase (which uses Emtree and /ti,ab). Systematic reviews require searching multiple databases for comprehensiveness, and each search must be adapted to the target database’s specific syntax.
Key differences include: PubMed uses MeSH while Embase uses Emtree; PubMed field tags use brackets [tiab] while Embase uses colons :ti,ab; PubMed truncation uses * while Embase also uses *; PubMed uses [pt] for publication type while Embase uses /de for drug terms. Proximity operators differ significantly: PubMed has no native proximity search, while Embase supports NEAR/n and ADJ operators.
Partially. Tools like the Polyglot Search Translator (Bond University) and Embase’s built-in query translator can automate free-text term translation. However, controlled vocabulary (MeSH to Emtree mapping) requires manual verification because terms do not always have direct equivalents. The PRESS guideline recommends peer-reviewing translated strategies before execution to catch translation errors.
Build your initial search from scratch using our search strategy builder with PICO concept mapping. Structure your research question before searching with the PICO/PECO/SPIDER framework generator. After running searches across databases, remove duplicates with our reference deduplication tool.
Our research methodologists can design, translate, and document search strategies across all major databases for your systematic review, ensuring PRISMA-compliant reproducibility.