17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Appearance of Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome as research question in the title of articles of three different anesthesia journals: A pilot study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          It is well known in the evidence-based medicine practice that framing the research question is the most important and crucial part of the research integrity. Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) is a specialized framework used by most researchers to formulate a research question and to facilitate literature review. The aim of this study is to investigate the representation of the PICO frame in the title of published articles in three different anesthesia journals.

          Methods:

          We performed this double-blind, pilot study on papers published in three anesthesia journals, including Anesthesia and Intensive care (a), Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia (b), and Anesthesia Analgesia (c) from January 2016 to September 2017. We randomly selected 30 randomized controlled trials from each journal to check for the PICO frame in the title of each article. We used Chi-square test to compare the met variables in the three journals with respect to PICO frame. Met variables are those who met the PICO frame and not met are not. We assumed a statistically significant difference when P was <0.05.

          Results:

          Ninety randomized controlled trials articles (n = 90) were included in this study (n = 30 each journal A, B, and C). Corresponding estimates of the percent of papers that failed (not met) to adopt PICO elements were as follow for journal A, B, and C, respectively: Population: 30%, 30%, and 20%; Intervention: 50%, 30%, and 26.7%; Comparison: 53.3%, 60%, and 53.3%; and Outcome: 30%, 6.7%, and 0.0% with significant differences between journals A and C (P < 0.05).

          Conclusion:

          Researches adopting PICO elements usually receive higher citation percentages. There is a need to further investigate the PICO framework in a larger study to determine whether it can be well represented in the titles of different research designs. That, in turn, will help the precision of searches performed on a PICO-formatted screen to receive relevant citations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Posing the research question: not so simple.

          The success of any research process relies, in part, on how well investigators are able to translate a clinical problem into a research question-a task that is not so simple for novice investigators. The PICOT approach requires that the framing of the research question specify the target Population, the Intervention of interest, the Comparator intervention, key Outcomes, and the Time frame over which the outcomes are assessed. This paper describes the use of the PICOT structure in framing research questions and examines PICOT criteria as applied to the anesthesia literature. We also provide a roadmap for applying the PICOT format in identifying and framing clear research questions. In addition to searching MEDLINE for the literature on framing research questions, we performed a systematic review of articles published in four key anesthesia journals in 2006, including Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, the British Journal of Anaesthesia, and the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. Three hundred thirteen articles (n = 313) were included in this review, with the following distribution by study design: 139 (44%) randomized controlled trials, 129 (41%) cohort studies, and 45 (15%) case-controlled, cross-sectional studies or systematic reviews. Overall, 96% (95% confidence interval: 91,100) of articles did not apply the PICOT approach in reporting the research question. The PICOT approach may be helpful in defining and clearly stating the research question. It remains to be determined whether or not compliance with the PICOT style, or any other format for framing research questions, is associated with a higher quality of research reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Saudi J Anaesth
                Saudi J Anaesth
                SJA
                Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
                Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd (India )
                1658-354X
                0975-3125
                Apr-Jun 2018
                : 12
                : 2
                : 283-286
                Affiliations
                [1]Department of Anesthesia, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                [1 ]College of Medicine and Research Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Prof. Abdelazeem Eldawlatly, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: dawlatly@ 123456ksu.edu.sa
                Article
                SJA-12-283
                10.4103/sja.SJA_767_17
                5875219
                29628841
                4fd18d7f-65dc-4cb9-8c73-c19497e2e407
                Copyright: © 2018 Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                Categories
                Original Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                evidence-based medicine; population,intervention,comparison,and outcome framework; research

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content108

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors104