Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30271283›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2018

The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review.

Mette Brandt Eriksen, Tove Faber Frandsen

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 522 papers, 93 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
522citing papers in PubMed, 93 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

522 citing papers in PubMed, 93 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents across the cancer care continuum: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    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. The impact of hyperglycaemia and/or type 2 diabetes on women with breast cancer undergoing or post-cytotoxic chemotherapy: a systematic literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Natural flavonoid isoorientin and its anticancer mechanisms: a systematic review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Indoor Radon Exposure Among Schoolchildren: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

462 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

2 authors.

Mette Brandt EriksenUniversity Library, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6785-261X
Tove Faber FrandsenDepartment of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Universitetsparken 1, DK-6000 Kolding, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8983-5009

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis review aimed to determine if the use of the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) model as a search strategy tool affects the quality of a literature search.

methodsA 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) catalog up until January 9, 2017. Reference lists were scrutinized, and citation searches were performed on the included studies. The primary outcome 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 use of another conceptualizing tool or unguided searching.

resultsA total of 2,163 records were identified, and after removal of duplicates and initial screening, 22 full-text articles were assessed. Of these, 19 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). One study compared PICO to unguided searching. Due to differences in intervention, no quantitative analysis was performed.

conclusionsOnly few studies exist that assess the effect of the PICO model vis-a-vis other available models or even vis-a-vis the use of no model. Before implications for current practice can be drawn, well-designed studies are needed to evaluate the role of the tool used to devise a search strategy.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalPeriodicals as TopicQuality Assurance, Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30271283
PMCPMC6148624

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.