PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews
نویسندگان
چکیده
BACKGROUND Qualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, but remained untested beyond its development team. METHODS In this article we tested the 'SPIDER' search tool in a systematic narrative review of qualitative literature investigating the health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Identical search terms were combined into the PICO or SPIDER search tool and compared across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases. In addition, we added to this method by comparing initial SPIDER and PICO tools to a modified version of PICO with added qualitative search terms (PICOS). RESULTS Results showed a greater number of hits from the PICO searches, in comparison to the SPIDER searches, with greater sensitivity. SPIDER searches showed greatest specificity for every database. The modified PICO demonstrated equal or higher sensitivity than SPIDER searches, and equal or lower specificity than SPIDER searches. The modified PICO demonstrated lower sensitivity and greater specificity than PICO searches. CONCLUSIONS The recommendations for practice are therefore to use the PICO tool for a fully comprehensive search but the PICOS tool where time and resources are limited. Based on these limited findings the SPIDER tool would not be recommended due to the risk of not identifying relevant papers, but has potential due to its greater specificity.
منابع مشابه
Modifying “Pico” Question into “Picos” Model for More Robust and Reproducible Presentation of the Methodology Employed in A Scientific Study
متن کامل
A PRISMA assessment of reporting the quality of published dental systematic reviews in Iran, up to 2017
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure correct interpretation of study results by readers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are of critical importance in evidence-based dentistry. This study assessed the reporting quality of published dental SRs in Iran.METHODS: The PubMed and ISI electronic databases were searched to collect published Iranian dental SRs up to the end of...
متن کاملThe Risk Factors of Prediabetes in Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Background: Pre-diabetes is a risk state for the future development of type 2 diabetes. The risk factors for prediabetes have been categorized as modifiable and non-modifiable. However, conclusive evidence regarding the risk factors associated with pre-diabetes in adolescence is still lacking. This study aims to answer the question of: which risk factors are most associated with the incidence o...
متن کاملFuture competencies for hospital management in developing countries: Systematic review
Background: This was a systematic review presenting the future competencies for hospital managers. Methods: Participants, interventions, comparisons and outcomes (PICO) strategy with MeSH terms were used for searching. Databases used were Web of Science, PsycINFO and Medline, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Emerald, ProQuest, Social Sciences Research Network, Embase, and some Iranian database su...
متن کاملFactors Involved in Missed Nursing Care: A Systematic Review
Background. Missed Nursing Care (MNC) is experienced in nearly all health care facilities. Awareness of the aspects involved in the occurrence of MNC can lead to the improvement of the quality of patient care. This systematic review aims to answer the question: "What factors are involved in the incidence of missed nursing care?" Methods. This systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting...
متن کامل