Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39582233›Full record

ArticleJournal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing2025

PICOT questions and search strategies formulation: A novel approach using artificial intelligence automation.

Lucija Gosak, Gregor Štiglic, Lisiane Pruinelli, Dominika Vrbnjak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Development and Evaluation of a Generative AI Chatbot for Database Searching in Systematic Review.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. PICOT questions and search strategies formulation: A novel approach using artificial intelligence automation.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

Lucija GosakFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-8742-6594
Gregor ŠtiglicFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-0183-8679
Lisiane PruinelliCollege of Nursing and College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1046-6037
Dominika VrbnjakFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-4952-078X

Funding

Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS GC-0001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare artificial intelligence (AI)-based large language models (LLMs) (ChatGPT-3.5, Bing, and Bard) with human-based formulations in generating relevant clinical queries, using comprehensive methodological evaluations.

methodsTo interact with the major LLMs ChatGPT-3.5, Bing Chat, and Google Bard, scripts and prompts were designed to formulate PICOT (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time) clinical questions and search strategies. Quality of the LLMs responses was assessed using a descriptive approach and independent assessment by two researchers. To determine the number of hits, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL Ultimate search results were imported separately, without search restrictions, with the search strings generated by the three LLMs and an additional one by the expert. Hits from one of the scenarios were also exported for relevance evaluation. The use of a single scenario was chosen to provide a focused analysis. Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were also calculated.

resultsIn five different scenarios, ChatGPT-3.5 generated 11,859 hits, Bing 1,376,854, Bard 16,583, and an expert 5919 hits. We then used the first scenario to assess the relevance of the obtained results. The human expert search approach resulted in 65.22% (56/105) relevant articles. Bing was the most accurate AI-based LLM with 70.79% (63/89), followed by ChatGPT-3.5 with 21.05% (12/45), and Bard with 13.29% (42/316) relevant hits. Based on the assessment of two evaluators, ChatGPT-3.5 received the highest score (M = 48.50; SD = 0.71). Results showed a high level of agreement between the two evaluators. Although ChatGPT-3.5 showed a lower percentage of relevant hits compared to Bing, this reflects the nuanced evaluation criteria, where the subjective evaluation prioritized contextual accuracy and quality over mere relevance.

conclusionThis study provides valuable insights into the ability of LLMs to formulate PICOT clinical questions and search strategies. AI-based LLMs, such as ChatGPT-3.5, demonstrate significant potential for augmenting clinical workflows, improving clinical query development, and supporting search strategies. However, the findings also highlight limitations that necessitate further refinement and continued human oversight. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AI could assist nurses in formulating PICOT clinical questions and search strategies. AI-based LLMs offer valuable support to healthcare professionals by improving the structure of clinical questions and enhancing search strategies, thereby significantly increasing the efficiency of information retrieval.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAutomationInformation Storage and RetrievalHumansAI language modelsartificial intelligenceclinical questionsevidence‐based practicesearch strategies

Identifiers

PMID39582233
PMCPMC11771709

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.