Is There a Form for Higgens and Green Cochrane Reviews to Evaluate a Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/ten.5195/jmla.2018.345Keywords:
PICO Model, Search Strategy Tools, Literature Search, Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic ReviewsAbstract
Objective: This review aimed to determine if the use of the patient, intervention, comparison, upshot (PICO) model as a search strategy tool affects the quality of a literature search.
Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Scopus, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) itemize up until Jan 9, 2017. Reference lists were scrutinized, and citation searches were performed on the included studies. The chief issue 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 utilize of some other conceptualizing tool or unguided searching.
Results: A total of 2,163 records were identified, and after removal of duplicates and initial screening, 22 full-text articles were assessed. Of these, nineteen 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). 1 study compared PICO to unguided searching. Due to differences in intervention, no quantitative analysis was performed.
Conclusions: Only few studies be that assess the upshot of the PICO model vis-a-vis other available models or fifty-fifty vis-a-vis the use of no model. Before implications for current practice tin can be drawn, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the role of the tool used to devise a search strategy.
This article has been canonical for the Medical Library Association's Independent Reading Program.
References
Cochrane AL. 1931–1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. Medicines Yr. 2000:1–11.
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a solar day: how will we ever keep up? PLOS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(nine):e1000326.
McGowan J, Sampson K, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. Printing Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clinl Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40–6.
Thomas J, McNaught J, Ananiadou South. Applications of text mining inside systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011 Mar;2(i):1–14.
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. a new approach to didactics the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992 November 4;268(17):2420–5.
Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995 Nov–Dec;123(3):A12–3.
Cooke A, Smith D, Berth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative show synthesis. Qual Wellness Res. 2012 Oct;22(x):1435–43.
Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for bear witness based practice. Libr Hello Tech. 2006;24(3):355–68.
Miller SA, Forrest JL. Enhancing your do through evidence-based conclusion making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions. J Evidence-Based Dental Pract. 2001 October;1(2):136–41. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1532-3382(01)70024-3.
Higgins JP, Greenish Due south, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library; 2008.
Huang 10, Lin J, Demner-Fushman D, eds. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006:359–63.
Considine J, Shaban RZ, Fry M, Curtis G. Evidence based emergency nursing: designing a research question and searching the literature. Int Emerg Nurs. 2017 May;32:78–82.
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library; 2008. Lefebvre C ME, Glanville J. Chapter half-dozen, Searching for studies.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter Air conditioning, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb fifteen;7:10.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097.
Booth A. How much searching is plenty? comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for engineering assessments. Int J Technol Assess Wellness Care. 2010 Oct;26(4):431–5.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The guidelines manual [Net]. London, United kingdom: The Institute; Nov 2012 [cited 3 Jul 2018]. <http://www.nice.org.great britain>.
Buckland M, Gey F. The relationship between retrieve and precision. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1994 January;45(i):12.
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris Eastward, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I comport? a proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and wellness sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan ten;18(i):5.
Hjørland B. The foundation of the concept of relevance. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2010 Feb;61(2):217–37.
Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Garin N, Perrier A, Perneger Tv set. Sensitivity and predictive value of 15 PubMed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews. J Med Cyberspace Res. 2012 Jun 12;14(3):e85.
Hoogendam A, de Vries Robbe PF, Overbeke AJ. Comparing patient characteristics, blazon of intervention, command, and outcome (PICO) queries with unguided searching: a randomized controlled crossover trial. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 April;100(ii):121–vi. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.two.010.
Methley AM, Campbell Due south, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 21;xiv:579.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman Advertising, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC. The Cochrane Collaboration'southward tool for assessing run a risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical Enquiry Ed). 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928.
Source: https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/345
0 Response to "Is There a Form for Higgens and Green Cochrane Reviews to Evaluate a Study"
Post a Comment