article Open AccessTop 10% cited
PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews
BMC Health Services Research · 2014 · Vol. 14(1) · pp. 579–579
Abigail Methley✉(University of Manchester)Stephen Campbell(University of Manchester)Carolyn Chew‐Graham(Keele University)Rosalind McNallySudeh Cheraghi‐Sohi(University of Manchester)
Abstract
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.
Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyDisaster Response and ManagementSpiderCINAHLQualitative researchMEDLINEPopularitySystematic reviewMedicineInformation retrievalComputer sciencePsychology
MeSH terms
AnimalsHumansMultiple SclerosisReview Literature as TopicSensitivity and SpecificityMeta-Analysis as TopicDatabases, BibliographicInformation Storage and RetrievalQualitative ResearchSearch Engine
Funding
- University of Manchester
- NIHR School for Primary Care Research
Citations
2,478
FWCI
6.04
field-weighted impact
References
39
Percentile
97%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Cited by
Inflammatory Effects of High and Moderate Intensity Exercise—A Systematic Review
Frontiers in Physiology · 2020 · 492 citations
References
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
The Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2010 · 3,272 citations
Citation Network
How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.