首页> 外文期刊>Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia >Appearance of Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome as research question in the title of articles of three different anesthesia journals: A pilot study
【24h】

Appearance of Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome as research question in the title of articles of three different anesthesia journals: A pilot study

机译:在三种不同的麻醉学期刊的文章标题中,人口,干预,比较和结果的出现作为研究问题:一项初步研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: It is well known in the evidence-based medicine practice that framing the research question is the most important and crucial part of the research integrity. Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) is a specialized framework used by most researchers to formulate a research question and to facilitate literature review. The aim of this study is to investigate the representation of the PICO frame in the title of published articles in three different anesthesia journals. Methods: We performed this double-blind, pilot study on papers published in three anesthesia journals, including Anesthesia and Intensive care (a), Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia (b), and Anesthesia Analgesia (c) from January 2016 to September 2017. We randomly selected 30 randomized controlled trials from each journal to check for the PICO frame in the title of each article. We used Chi-square test to compare the met variables in the three journals with respect to PICO frame. Met variables are those who met the PICO frame and not met are not. We assumed a statistically significant difference when P was <0.05. Results: Ninety randomized controlled trials articles (n = 90) were included in this study (n = 30 each journal A, B, and C). Corresponding estimates of the percent of papers that failed (not met) to adopt PICO elements were as follow for journal A, B, and C, respectively: Population: 30%, 30%, and 20%; Intervention: 50%, 30%, and 26.7%; Comparison: 53.3%, 60%, and 53.3%; and Outcome: 30%, 6.7%, and 0.0% with significant differences between journals A and C (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Researches adopting PICO elements usually receive higher citation percentages. There is a need to further investigate the PICO framework in a larger study to determine whether it can be well represented in the titles of different research designs. That, in turn, will help the precision of searches performed on a PICO-formatted screen to receive relevant citations.
机译:背景:在循证医学实践中众所周知,框架研究问题是研究完整性的最重要和至关重要的部分。人口,干预,比较和结果(PICO)是大多数研究人员用来提出研究问题和促进文献综述的专门框架。这项研究的目的是调查在三种不同麻醉学期刊上已发表文章的标题中PICO框架的表示形式。方法:2016年1月至2017年9月,我们对三种麻醉学期刊(包括麻醉和重症监护(a),沙特麻醉学(b)和麻醉镇痛(c))上发表的论文进行了这项双盲先导研究。从每本期刊中随机选择30项随机对照试验,以检查每篇文章标题中的PICO框架。我们使用卡方检验比较了三种日志中PICO框架的满足变量。 Met变量是那些满足PICO框架而未满足的变量。当P <0.05时,我们假设存在统计学上的显着差异。结果:这项研究包括90篇随机对照试验文章(n = 90)(A,B和C期刊分别为n = 30)。未能(未达到)采用PICO要素的论文百分比的相应估计分别针对期刊A,B和C如下:人口:30%,30%和20%;干预:50%,30%和26.7%;比较:53.3%,60%和53.3%;和结果:30%,6.7%和0.0%,期刊A和C之间存在显着差异(P <0.05)。结论:采用PICO元素的研究通常会获得较高的引用率。有必要在更大的研究中进一步研究PICO框架,以确定它是否可以在不同研究设计的标题中很好地代表。反过来,这将有助于在PICO格式的屏幕上执行搜索的准确性,以接收相关的引用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号