PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews.

Abigail M Methley, Stephen Campbell, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Rosalind McNally, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi

November 2014 BMC Health Serv Res

Synopsis of Social media discussions

Discussions show strong interest and engagement, with posts mentioning the importance of the tools for constructing research questions, such as 'SPIDER helps to build effective research questions,' and emphasizing the comparison study as useful for qualitative reviews. The tone reflects curiosity and practical relevance, highlighting the study's role in refining research methods, though the perceived impact remains moderate.

A
Agreement
 Moderate agreement

Most discussions recognize the validity and usefulness of the study, especially in highlighting how different search tools compare, indicating general agreement with its conclusions.

I
Interest
 High level of interest

Posts demonstrate high interest, with many emphasizing the relevance of the comparison for qualitative research, people referencing specific techniques like SPIDER and mentioning its components.

E
Engagement
 High engagement

Posts exhibit deep engagement by discussing methodological implications, sharing insights about the tools, and referencing their own research questions and how these tools help construct effective questions.

I
Impact
 Moderate level of impact

While the discussions are somewhat impactful, focusing on methodological improvements, most posts suggest the study influences current best practices rather than causing revolutionary change.

Social Mentions

YouTube

2 Videos

Twitter

14 Posts

News

1 Articles

Metrics

Video Views

483

Total Likes

49

Extended Reach

18,224

Social Features

17

Timeline: Posts about article

Top Social Media Posts

Posts referencing the article

Comparing PICO, PICOS, and SPIDER Search Tools for Systematic Reviews

Comparing PICO, PICOS, and SPIDER Search Tools for Systematic Reviews

This video analyzes the effectiveness of PICO, PICOS, and SPIDER tools in qualitative research searches, focusing on health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. PICO offers higher sensitivity, while SPIDER provides greater specificity, with PICOS balancing both aspects.

Busqueda Bibliografica

March 18, 2021

272 views

Effective Research Title Formulation Using PICOS and SPIDER Methods

Effective Research Title Formulation Using PICOS and SPIDER Methods

This video explains how to justify, understand, and formulate research titles using PICOS and SPIDER methods for both qualitative and quantitative studies, focusing on systematic review searches in health research.

Tech & Tour

October 28, 2021

212 views

  • Paula Montoya
    @PaulaAMontoyaZ (Twitter)

    RT @Aplicognitio: ¿Sabías que en investigación cualitativa la técnica SPIDER ayuda a construir preguntas de investigación efectivas? Descub…
    view full post

    November 5, 2024

    1

  • ApliCognitio - Cognitio Applicata
    @Aplicognitio (Twitter)

    ¿Sabías que en investigación cualitativa la técnica SPIDER ayuda a construir preguntas de investigación efectivas? Descubre sus componentes
    view full post

    November 4, 2024

    1

    1

  • Lauren Ball
    @ProfLaurenBall (Twitter)

    Sharing this useful comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools (PICO, PICOS and SPIDER) for qualitative systematic reviews! @AcademicChatter #PhDChat
    view full post

    March 21, 2024

    3

  • Linda McGowan
    @linda_leeds (Twitter)

    RT @CizCG: https://t.co/OEt5WYLCXR .@KeeleUniversity
    view full post

    February 27, 2023

    1

  • ProfessorCarolynCG
    @CizCG (Twitter)

    https://t.co/OEt5WYLCXR .@KeeleUniversity https://t.co/rAZc0nV4SU
    view full post

    February 22, 2023

    1

    1

  • TOMOHIRO ISHIKAWA
    @tomophysio (Twitter)

    RT @OT_Hirose: 質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICO…
    view full post

    February 3, 2023

    7

  • KOB@第14回教育学会広報担当
    @kenchiku_suzuki (Twitter)

    RT @OT_Hirose: 質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICO…
    view full post

    February 3, 2023

    7


  • @PT39715803 (Twitter)

    RT @OT_Hirose: 質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICO…
    view full post

    February 2, 2023

    7

  • Roasted
    @mid_esa (Twitter)

    RT @OT_Hirose: 質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICO…
    view full post

    February 2, 2023

    7

  • EBE Japan
    @m072132 (Twitter)

    RT @OT_Hirose: 質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICO…
    view full post

    February 2, 2023

    7

  • 小谷優平 yuheikodani@言語聴覚士，川崎医療福祉大学，助教, Ph.D.
    @B45KTCivYDZBh7G (Twitter)

    RT @OT_Hirose: 質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICO…
    view full post

    February 2, 2023

    7

  • ヒロセマン@エビデンスを「使う」ことを支援する人
    @OT_Hirose (Twitter)

    質的研究の検索についてPICO，PICOS，SPIDERを比較した研究✍️SPIDERは関連文献を特定できないリスクがある、包括的な検索にはPICOを用い，時間や手間をかけられない場合はPICOSを使用することが推奨されるとのこと。ちなみにPICOSのSはStudy typeです。 https://t.co/FxMDdIhvF9
    view full post

    February 2, 2023

    29

    7

  • hataboSAN
    @hataboSAN (Twitter)

    PICO、PICOS、SPIDER: 質的系統的レビューのための 3 つの検索ツールにおける特異性と感度の比較研究 https://t.co/DM7YQTsdIl
    view full post

    December 14, 2022

  • Soham Bandyopadhyay
    @SohamBGlobal (Twitter)

    3/13 What makes up of a focused question? The most popular form is PICO ( PIC(ka)
    view full post

    May 1, 2021

    1

  • Costs Associated With Long-Acting Insulin Analogues in Patients ...

    doi: 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0. 10. Kostev K, Dippel FW, Bierwirth R. Resource consumption and costs of treatment in patients with type 1 ...
    view full post

    July 11, 2018

    News

Abstract Synopsis

  • The study compares three search tools—PICO, SPIDER, and a modified PICO (PICOS)—to evaluate their effectiveness in searching qualitative research for systematic reviews, specifically focusing on health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis.
  • Results indicate that PICO searches produced more hits (greater sensitivity), while SPIDER searches were more specific, identifying fewer but more relevant studies. The modified PICO (PICOS) balanced sensitivity and specificity, often performing as well as or better than the original tools.
  • The recommendation is to use PICO for comprehensive searches, but PICOS is preferred when time is limited; SPIDER may risk missing relevant studies due to lower sensitivity, though it offers higher specificity.]