Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25413154›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2014

PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.

Abigail M Methley, Stephen Campbell, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Rosalind McNally, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1,140 papers, 98 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,140citing papers in PubMed, 98 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

1,140 citing papers in PubMed, 98 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Ceftriaxone for methicillin-susceptibleAnnals of medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. 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

1,080 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.

Abigail M MethleyUniversity of Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. abigail.methley@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Stephen CampbellUniversity of Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Stephen.Campbell@manchester.ac.uk.
Carolyn Chew-GrahamInstitute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK. c.a.chew-graham@keele.ac.uk.
Rosalind McNallyCentral Manchester Hospitals Site, Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust, Research and Innovation 3rd Floor, Rawnsley Building, Hathersage Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK. Rosalind.McNally@mhsc.nhs.uk.
Sudeh Cheraghi-SohiUniversity of Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Sudeh.Cheraghi-sohi@manchester.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health WMCLAHRC-2014-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, but remained untested beyond its development team.

methodsIn this article we tested the 'SPIDER' search tool in a systematic narrative review of qualitative literature investigating the health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Identical search terms were combined into the PICO or SPIDER search tool and compared across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases. In addition, we added to this method by comparing initial SPIDER and PICO tools to a modified version of PICO with added qualitative search terms (PICOS).

resultsResults showed a greater number of hits from the PICO searches, in comparison to the SPIDER searches, with greater sensitivity. SPIDER searches showed greatest specificity for every database. The modified PICO demonstrated equal or higher sensitivity than SPIDER searches, and equal or lower specificity than SPIDER searches. The modified PICO demonstrated lower sensitivity and greater specificity than PICO searches.

conclusionsThe recommendations for practice are therefore to use the PICO tool for a fully comprehensive search but the PICOS tool where time and resources are limited. Based on these limited findings the SPIDER tool would not be recommended due to the risk of not identifying relevant papers, but has potential due to its greater specificity.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicQualitative ResearchReview Literature as TopicAnimalsDatabases, BibliographicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMultiple SclerosisSearch EngineSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25413154
PMCPMC4310146

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.