Table 3.
Use of the patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) model compared to another conceptualizing model as a literature search strategy tool
| Study (author, year) | Study design | Searchers | Calculation of primary outcomes | Databases searched | Comparison model or unguided search | Sensitivity (%) | Precision (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agoritsas et al., 2012 [21] | Observational study (no randomization, time series, or other study design indicated) | Two study authors trained in epidemiology and evidence-based medicine (EBM) extracted search terms, which all coauthors approved. It is unclear who performed the searches. | Sensitivity and precision calculations based on the relevance of the first 40 records in the search output as compared to a gold standard. | PubMed | PICO* | Median: | Median: |
| 17.9§, ‡‡ | 6.3§, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 26.1†, ‡‡ | 8.8†, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 29.6†, ** | 11.3†, ** | ||||||
| 15.5†, †† | 20.0†, †† | ||||||
| 54.7‡, ‡‡ | 32.1‡, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 54.7‡, ** | 32.8‡, ** | ||||||
| 15.5‡, †† | 50.0‡, †† | ||||||
| PIC (truncated version of PICO)* | Median: | Median: | |||||
| 9.8§, ‡‡ | 2.5§, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 14.6†, ‡‡ | 5.0†, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 17.6†, ** | 5.0†, ** | ||||||
| 48.5‡, ‡‡ | 21.3 ‡, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 52.8‡, ** | 23.8‡, ** | ||||||
| PubMed link to related articles* | Median: | Median: | |||||
| 39.7§, ‡‡ | 10.0§, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 37.9§, ‡‡ | 10.0§, ‡‡ | ||||||
| 37.5§, ‡‡ | 7.5§, ‡‡ | ||||||
| Hoogendam et al., 2012 [22] | Randomized controlled crossover trial | 8 specialists and 14 residents with interest in vascular medicine. | Sensitivity and precision calculations based on the relevance of all search output as compared to a gold standard. | PubMed | PICO | Average: 13.62 | Average:3.44 |
| Unguided search | Average: 12.27 | Average:4.02 | |||||
| Methley et al., 2014 [23] | Observational study (study design not indicated) | Search strategy developed as collaboration between some or all study authors and a specialist librarian and information specialist. | Sensitivity and precision calculations based on the relevance of all search output as assessed by the study authors. | CINAHL | PICO | 77.78 | 1.04 |
| Embase | 72.22 | 0.1 | |||||
| MEDLINE | 66.67 | 0.15 | |||||
| CINAHL | PICOS | 66.67 | 8.22 | ||||
| Embase | 38.88 | 3.7 | |||||
| MEDLINE | 33.33 | 5.32 | |||||
| CINAHL | SPIDER | 66.67 | 8.22 | ||||
| Embase | 16.67 | 5.45 | |||||
| MEDLINE | 27.78 | 35.71 |
* Queries were combined with a †broad therapeutic intervention filter, ‡a narrow therapeutic intervention filter, or §no filter and further limited to **English language and human studies; ††English language, human studies, and Abridged Index Medicus titles; or ‡‡no limitations.