Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32256230›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2020

A comparison of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) to a new, alternative clinical question framework for search skills, search results, and self-efficacy: a randomized controlled trial.

Lorie A Kloda, Jill T Boruff, Alexandre Soares Cavalcante

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

Trial report in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Lorie A KlodaAssociate University Librarian, Planning & Community Relations, Library, Concordia University, 1455 boulevard de Maisonneuve O. LB-331.17, Montreal, QC, H3G 1M8, Canada, lorie.kloda@concordia.ca, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1429-1497.
Jill T BoruffSchulich Library of Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, and Engineering, McGill University, 809 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC, H3A 0C1, Canada, jill.boruff@mcgill.ca, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0338-7322.
Alexandre Soares CavalcanteDoctoral (PhD) Candidate, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada, alexandre.cavalcante@mail.mcgill.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn educating students in the health professions about evidence-based practice, instructors and librarians typically use the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) framework for asking clinical questions. A recent study proposed an alternative framework for the rehabilitation professions. The present study investigated the effectiveness of teaching the alternative framework in an educational setting.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted with students in occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) to determine if the alternative framework for asking clinical questions was effective for identifying information needs and searching the literature. Participants were randomly allocated to a control or experimental group to receive ninety minutes of information literacy instruction from a librarian about formulating clinical questions and searching the literature using MEDLINE. The control group received instruction that included the PICO question framework, and the experimental group received instruction that included the alternative framework.

resultsThere were no significant differences in search performance or search skills (strategy and clinical question formulation) between the two groups. Both the control and experimental groups demonstrated a modest but significant increase in information literacy self-efficacy after the instruction; however, there was no difference between the two groups.

conclusionWhen taught in an information literacy session, the new, alternative framework is as effective as PICO when assessing OT and PT students' searching skills. Librarian-led workshops using either question formulation framework led to an increase in information literacy self-efficacy post-instruction.

Indexed as

Information LiteracyOccupational TherapyPhysical Therapy ModalitiesSelf EfficacyTreatment OutcomeHumansInformation Storage and Retrieval

Identifiers

PMID32256230
PMCPMC7069809

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.