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

Abstract

BackgroundQualitative systematic reviews are increasing in popularity in evidence based health care. Difficulties have been reported in conducting literature searches of qualitative research using the PICO search tool. An alternative search tool, entitled SPIDER, was recently developed for more effective searching of qualitative research, but remained untested beyond its development team.MethodsIn this article we tested the ‘SPIDER’ search tool in a systematic narrative review of qualitative literature investigating the health care experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis. Identical search terms were combined into the PICO or SPIDER search tool and compared across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus databases. In addition, we added to this method by comparing initial SPIDER and PICO tools to a modified version of PICO with added qualitative search terms (PICOS).ResultsResults showed a greater number of hits from the PICO searches, in comparison to the SPIDER searches, with greater sensitivity. SPIDER searches showed greatest specificity for every database. The modified PICO demonstrated equal or higher sensitivity than SPIDER searches, and equal or lower specificity than SPIDER searches. The modified PICO demonstrated lower sensitivity and greater specificity than PICO searches.ConclusionsThe 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.

Healthcare workers’ perceptions and experience on using mHealth technologies to deliver primary healthcare services: qualitative evidence synthesis

“…We will use SPIDER (Cooke 2012; Methley 2014) to develop the screening tool, comprising 3 the following elements: …”

Meeting the mental health needs of people with multiple sclerosis: a qualitative study of patients and professionals

“…[15,16] Although international literature has qualitatively investigated experiences of MH care for MS [17][18][19] cultural and structural factors (e.g. financial barriers) prevent translation of these findings to a UK health care setting.…”

Orthodontic camouflage versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical treatment in class II malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The acronym PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design) was used to establish primary inclusion criteria for the studies 9 : (1) Population: patients with a skeletal class II malocclusion who have already finished their growth period or for whom significant growth is not expected to occur; (2) Intervention: surgical-orthodontic treatment; (3) Comparison: orthodontic camouflage treatment; (4) Outcome: dental, skeletal, and aesthetics measurements; (5) Study type: non-randomized clinical trials to assess therapeutic interventions.…”