Abstract
ObjectiveThis review aimed to determine if the use of the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) model as a search strategy tool affects the quality of a literature search.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Library and Information Science s (LISA), Scopus, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) catalog up until January 9, 2017. Reference lists were scrutinized, and citation searches were performed on the included studies. The primary outcome was the quality of literature searches and the secondary outcome was time spent on the literature search when the PICO model was used as a search strategy tool, compared to the use of another conceptualizing tool or unguided searching.ResultsA total of 2,163 records were identified, and after removal of duplicates and initial screening, 22 full-text articles were assessed. Of these, 19 studies were excluded and 3 studies were included, data were extracted, risk of bias was assessed, and a qualitative analysis was conducted. The included studies compared PICO to the PIC truncation or links to related articles in PubMed, PICOS, and sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, research type (SPIDER). One study compared PICO to unguided searching. Due to differences in intervention, no quantitative analysis was performed.ConclusionsOnly few studies exist that assess the effect of the PICO model vis-a-vis other available models or even vis-a-vis the use of no model. Before implications for current practice can be drawn, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the role of the tool used to devise a search strategy.
Highlights
The development of systematic reviews is considered a means of enabling clinicians to use evidence-based medicine (EBM) [1], and the number of systematic reviews is growing quickly [2]
As the search strategy builds upon the review question, formulating the review question is critical to developing the search strategy
In their 1992 publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group emphasized the precise definition of the patient problem, the required information needed to resolve the problem, and the ability to conduct an efficient search as the skills Journal of the Medical Library Association
Summary
The development of systematic reviews is considered a means of enabling clinicians to use evidence-based medicine (EBM) [1], and the number of systematic reviews is growing quickly [2]. As the search strategy builds upon the review question, formulating the review question is critical to developing the search strategy. In their 1992 publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group emphasized the precise definition of the patient problem, the required information needed to resolve the problem, and the ability to conduct an efficient search as the skills. 106 (4) October 2018 jmla.mlanet.org required for practicing EBM [5] In addition to these skills, the use of conceptualizing models to structure a clinical question was introduced in 1995, when Richardson et al proposed the use of a four-part model to facilitate searching for a precise answer [6]. They stated that a clinical question must be focused and well articulated for all four parts of its “anatomy”: the patient or problem (P); the intervention or exposure (I); the comparison intervention or exposure (C), if relevant; and the clinical outcome of interest (O)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
