PICO versus truncated PIC in PubMed: PICO showed higher median sensitivity and precision on the first 40 records, but PIC showed higher sensitivity on the full output¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? An observational study of 15 PubMed search strategies reported that PICO queries gave increased median sensitivity and precision compared with truncated PIC queries when the first 40 records were assessed, but on the full output PIC detected about 85% of relevant records versus about 69% for PICO. → Mette Brandt Eriksen 2018 q2 i? PubMed links to related articles achieved higher sensitivity and precision than both the PICO and PIC models in the same study. → Mette Brandt Eriksen 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Mette Brandt Eriksen 2018¶

Mette Brandt Eriksen, PhD; Tove Faber Frandsen, PhD. (2018). The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association 106 (4). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345

q2 · i? · review · r3

Observational study (Agoritsas et al., 2012) evaluating 15 search strategies varying in query structure, Clinical Queries filters, and limits, with 450 searches; relevance was assessed on the first 40 records and the complete output against a gold standard of Cochrane reviews. The review reports the PICO advantage was based on the first forty records only.

"One study compared the PICO model to the truncated PIC model in PubMed and reported that the PICO model resulted in increased median sensitivity and precision of the searches [21]."

Mette Brandt Eriksen 2018 (2)¶

Mette Brandt Eriksen, PhD; Tove Faber Frandsen, PhD. (2018). The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association 106 (4). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Same observational study, full-output analysis: the review reports "about 85% of records were detected by the PIC queries and about 69% by the PICO queries", reversing the first-40-records advantage. The review also notes PubMed links to related articles resulted in higher sensitivity and precision than both models.

"When the full output was screened for relevant studies, about 85% of records were detected by the PIC queries and about 69% by the PICO queries [21]."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The recommendation to avoid outcome-related search terms to preserve sensitivity is not substantiated by available evidence — related
• Only three studies assessing PICO as a search strategy tool were eligible for review, and heterogeneity prevented quantitative analysis — related
• PICO versus PICOS and SPIDER: PICO gave higher sensitivity and lower precision, but with different numbers of search blocks per model — related
• The number of search blocks impacts search quality: fewer blocks yield higher sensitivity and lower precision — related
• In a randomized crossover trial, PICO searching yielded higher average sensitivity and lower average precision than unguided searching, not statistically significant — related