To find the best available evidence you need to:
Developing a well-built question takes a bit of practice. The PICO mnemonic can be used to help develop or frame your question and is typically used for intervention or treatment type questions.
The type of question you ask will dictate the framework to use, so if your question doesn't fit the PICO format, consider using an alternative.
For an explanation of PICO and its use in evidence based practice: How to clarify a clinical question.
|
CoCoPop recommended for Prevalence or Incidence Condition, Context, Population Ref: Munn, Z., Moola, S., Lisy, K., Riitano, D., & Tufanaru, C. (2015). Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 147–153. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000054 |
|
PCC recommended for Scoping Reviews Population or Participants, Concept, Context Ref: Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 |
|
PEO recommended for Etiology or Risk Population, Exposure, Outcome(s) PECO C = Comparison Ref: Moola, S., Munn, Z., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Lisy, K., Tufanaru, C., Qureshi, R., Mattis, P., & Mu, P. (2015). Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000064 |
|
PICO recommended for Intervention/Treatment effectiveness Population/Patient/Problem, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome PICO variations/extensions: PICOC = Context/setting, PICOR = Research design, PICOS = Study type, PICOT = Timeframe, Ref: Anderson, P. F., & Booth, A. (2022). Question frameworks. In M. J. Foster & S. T. Jewell (Eds.), Piecing together systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses (pp. 45-56). Rowman & Littlefield. |
|
PIRD recommended for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Population, Index test, Reference test, Diagnosis of Interest Ref: Campbell, J. M., Klugar, M., Ding, S., Carmody, D. P., Hakonsen, S. J., Jadotte, Y. T., White, S., & Munn, Z. (2015). Diagnostic test accuracy: methods for systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000061 |
|
PCC recommended for Scoping Reviews Population or Participants, Concept, Context Ref: Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 |
|
PEO Population, Exposure of Interest, Outcome or Response Ref: Moola, S., Munn, Z., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Lisy, K., Tufanaru, C., Qureshi, R., Mattis, P., & Mu, P. (2015). Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000064 |
|
PICo Population, Interest, Context Ref: Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062 |
|
SPICE Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation Ref: Booth, A. (2004). Formulating answerable questions. In A. Booth & A. Brice (Eds.), Evidence based practice for information professionals: A handbook. (pp. 61-70). Facet. |
|
SPIDER Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type Ref: Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938 |
|
CLIP or ECLIPSe recommended for health policy/management CLIP: Client Group, Location, Improvement or Information or Innovation, Professionals ECLIPSe: Expectation, Client Group, Location, Impact, Professionals, Service Ref: Wildridge, V., & Bell, L. (2002). How CLIP became ECLIPSE: A mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 19(2): 113-115. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378 |
There are many more frameworks available, explore the following articles to find out more:
Booth, A., Noyes, J., Flemming, K., Moore, G., Tunçalp, Ö., & Shakibazadeh, E. (2019). Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), e001107. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107
Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., & Jordan, Z. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4