BMC Health Serv Res November 2014 PMID 25413154

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

Full text PDF Download social card

Mentions

Peak: 9 in Feb 2023

across 3 sources since Jul 2018

Extended reach

18,224

potential audience

Total likes

Video views

483

Mentions per month

Jul 2018 – Nov 2024

Where it's discussed

X / Twitter14 posts
YouTube2 videos
News1 articles

AI synopsis

What people are saying

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.

AgreementModerate 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.

InterestHigh 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.

EngagementHigh 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.

ImpactModerate 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.

Abstract in brief

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.]

Read the full abstract

All mentions

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…

Busqueda Bibliografica · Mar 18, 2021 272 views

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 · Oct 28, 2021 212 views

Paula Montoya

@PaulaAMontoyaZ · X

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

Nov 5, 2024 · 1 share · 175 followers View post →

ApliCognitio - Cognitio Applicata

@Aplicognitio · X

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

Nov 4, 2024 · 1 like · 1 share · 22 followers View post →

Lauren Ball

@ProfLaurenBall · X

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

Mar 21, 2024 · 3 likes · 7,887 followers View post →

Linda McGowan

@linda_leeds · X

RT @CizCG: https://t.co/OEt5WYLCXR .@KeeleUniversity

Feb 27, 2023 · 1 share · 490 followers View post →

ProfessorCarolynCG

@CizCG · X

https://t.co/OEt5WYLCXR .@KeeleUniversity https://t.co/rAZc0nV4SU

Feb 22, 2023 · 1 like · 1 share · 3,758 followers View post →

TOMOHIRO ISHIKAWA

@tomophysio · X

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…

Feb 3, 2023 · 7 shares · 165 followers View post →

KOB@第14回教育学会広報担当

@kenchiku_suzuki · X

Feb 3, 2023 · 7 shares · 402 followers View post →

PT39715803

@PT39715803 · X

Feb 2, 2023 · 7 shares · 259 followers View post →

Roasted

@mid_esa · X

Feb 2, 2023 · 7 shares · 15 followers View post →

EBE Japan

@m072132 · X

Feb 2, 2023 · 7 shares · 254 followers View post →

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

@B45KTCivYDZBh7G · X

Feb 2, 2023 · 7 shares · 368 followers View post →

ヒロセマン@エビデンスを「使う」ことを支援する人

@OT_Hirose · X

Feb 2, 2023 · 29 likes · 7 shares · 1,589 followers View post →

hataboSAN

@hataboSAN · X

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

Dec 14, 2022 · 1,010 followers View post →

Soham Bandyopadhyay

@SohamBGlobal · X

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

May 1, 2021 · 1 like · 1,232 followers View post →

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

News

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 ...

Jul 11, 2018 View →