Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17573961›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2007

Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions.

Connie Schardt, Martha B Adams, Thomas Owens, Sheri Keitz, Paul Fontelo

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,341 papers, 91 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,341citing papers in PubMed, 91 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,341 citing papers in PubMed, 91 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. The impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Basal cell adenocarcinoma of the parotid gland: prognostic factors and survival outcomes: a systematic review and pooled patient-level analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  8. Sleep and Its Impact on the Success of Weight Loss Interventions in Adults With Excess Weight: A Systematic Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Pooled it
  9. The Role of Fat-Free Mass in Weight-Related Complications: A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

1,281 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Connie SchardtMedical Center Library, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA. connie.schardt@duke.edu <connie.schardt@duke.edu>
Martha B Adams
Thomas Owens
Sheri Keitz
Paul Fontelo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSupporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence.

methodsThis randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set.

resultsParticipants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups.

conclusionDue to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.

Indexed as

PubMedEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalInternship and ResidencyMedical InformaticsMedical Subject HeadingsMEDLINEProbabilitySensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID17573961
PMCPMC1904193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.