BACKGROUND: Translating a question into a query using patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) should help answer therapeutic questions in PubMed searches. The authors performed a randomized crossover trial to determine whether the PICO format was useful for quick searches of PubMed. METHODS:Twenty-two residents and specialists working at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre were trained in formulating PICO queries and then presented with a randomized set of questions derived from Cochrane reviews. They were asked to use the best query possible in a five-minute search, using standard and PICO queries. Recall and precision were calculated for both standard and PICO queries. RESULTS: Twenty-two physicians created 434 queries using both techniques. Average precision was 4.02% for standard queries and 3.44% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.56, P = 0.58). Average recall was 12.27% for standard queries and 13.62% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.76, P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: PICO queries do not result in better recall or precision in time-limited searches. Standard queries containing enough detail are sufficient for quick searches.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Translating a question into a query using patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) should help answer therapeutic questions in PubMed searches. The authors performed a randomized crossover trial to determine whether the PICO format was useful for quick searches of PubMed. METHODS: Twenty-two residents and specialists working at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre were trained in formulating PICO queries and then presented with a randomized set of questions derived from Cochrane reviews. They were asked to use the best query possible in a five-minute search, using standard and PICO queries. Recall and precision were calculated for both standard and PICO queries. RESULTS: Twenty-two physicians created 434 queries using both techniques. Average precision was 4.02% for standard queries and 3.44% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.56, P = 0.58). Average recall was 12.27% for standard queries and 13.62% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.76, P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: PICO queries do not result in better recall or precision in time-limited searches. Standard queries containing enough detail are sufficient for quick searches.
Authors: Maartje C J Slagman; Femke Waanders; Marc H Hemmelder; Arend-Jan Woittiez; Wilbert M T Janssen; Hiddo J Lambers Heerspink; Gerjan Navis; Gozewijn D Laverman Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-07-26
Authors: Arjen Hoogendam; Anton F H Stalenhoef; Pieter F de Vries Robbé; A John P M Overbeke Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Arjen Hoogendam; Anton F H Stalenhoef; Pieter F de Vries Robbé; A John P M Overbeke Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2008-10-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Aurélie Seguin; Robert Brian Haynes; Sebastian Carballo; Alfonso Iorio; Arnaud Perrier; Thomas Agoritsas Journal: JMIR Med Educ Date: 2020-04-20
Authors: Yejin Lee; Brian Chen; Mandy W M Fong; Jin-Moo Lee; Ginger E Nicol; Eric J Lenze; Lisa T Connor; Carolyn Baum; Alex W K Wong Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 2.119