In a randomized crossover trial, PICO searching yielded higher average sensitivity and lower average precision than unguided searching, not statistically significant¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Among 14 residents and 8 specialists in vascular medicine, PICO-guided searching produced higher average sensitivity (13.62 vs 12.27) and lower average precision (3.44 vs 4.02) than unguided searching, though the difference was not statistically significant at p<0.05. → Mette Brandt Eriksen 2018
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
q3 · i? · review · r3
Randomized controlled crossover trial (Hoogendam et al., 2012) with 8 specialists and 14 residents interested in vascular medicine, each performing 5-minute searches on 12 therapeutic questions per condition; sensitivity and precision were calculated against a gold standard from all search output. Table 3 prints PICO averages of 13.62 sensitivity and 3.44 precision versus 12.27 and 4.02 for unguided search.
"Although not statistically significant at the p<0.05 level, using the PICO model resulted in a higher average sensitivity and lower average precision than did unguided searching."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Only three studies assessing PICO as a search strategy tool were eligible for review, and heterogeneity prevented quantitative analysis — related
- 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 — related
- The number of search blocks impacts search quality: fewer blocks yield higher sensitivity and lower precision — related
- PICO versus PICOS and SPIDER: PICO gave higher sensitivity and lower precision, but with different numbers of search blocks per model — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
pico-vs-unguided-sensitivity-precision |
title |
In a randomized crossover trial, PICO searching yielded higher average sensitivity and lower average precision than unguided searching, not statistically significant |
description |
In a randomized crossover trial, PICO searching yielded higher average sensitivity and lower average precision than unguided searching, not statistically significant |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — mette-brandt-eriksen-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.