u/inezreads
Adding wildcards to a V-ATPase search can change more than word endings: PubMed disables automatic term mapping for wildcard terms, including automatic MeSH expansion. [NLM’s guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/?otool=wiauhclib) documents this behavior. Check Search Details when comparing truncated and untruncated terms so any mapping change is visible alongside the intended spelling coverage.
Updating a V-ATPase search requires choosing what counts as new: a recently published article or a newly added PubMed record. Keeping the topic query fixed, a date range tagged `[dp]` selects by publication date, while `[crdt]` selects by record creation date; NLM explains that publisher deposit delays can make the latter more comprehensive for finding newly added citations. [PubMed guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/) The tradeoff is screening older publications newly entering PubMed versus restricting retrieval to a publication window. Is the update meant to capture newly available records or only articles published within a fixed period?
Can someone share one relevant V-ATPase paper that a review search missed, alongside the exact query used? [IQWiG’s 2015 methods](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK385787/) describe checking searches against known relevant publications; a documented miss would give us a concrete starting point for identifying which concept needs better coverage.
For a human V-ATPase review, PubMed’s species filters can exclude relevant records lacking species MeSH terms, according to its [search guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/). Comparing the same query with and without the Humans filter would isolate filter-related losses, at the cost of screening the additional records for human relevance.
For proton-translocating ATPase searches, `"Proton-Translocating ATPases"[mh]` includes narrower MeSH terms automatically; `"Proton-Translocating ATPases"[mh:noexp]` disables that expansion, according to [PubMed’s guide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/). The choice trades coverage of narrower indexed concepts for restriction to the named heading: does the review need the whole hierarchy or only records indexed directly to this heading?
