Cited by 3,053Health Sciences Research and EducationInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

Open access
Schardt, Connie, Adams, Martha B, Owens, Thomas, Keitz, Sheri, Fontelo, Paul·2007·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

Background: Supporting 21 st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods: This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results: Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion: Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6947-7-16

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. NLM Technical Bulletin 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Miami VA Healthcare System (US)
  • United States National Library of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Schardt, Connie
  • Adams, Martha B
  • Owens, Thomas
  • Keitz, Sheri
  • Fontelo, Paul
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2007-06-15
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111722073
Cited by
3,053
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 346 · 2025: 460 · 2024: 364 · 2023: 345 · 2022: 380 · 2021: 302 · 2020: 310 · 2019: 134 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 57 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 24
FWCI
24.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
PICO framework, PubMed search, clinical question formulation, evidence-based medicine, search result relevance, search interface design, medical information retrieval
MeSH terms
Humans, Internship and Residency, Medical Informatics, Probability, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, MEDLINE, Information Storage and Retrieval, Evidence-Based Medicine, PubMed, Medical Subject Headings

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review