When we set ourselves a clinical question-probably using the PICO frame, we mostly do not think about the 'scope' of what we are doing. It is instinctive. But like lots of unconscious actions, it is frequently helpful to expose them to a bit of critical thinking.Take a question about C reactive protein (CRP) thresholds to perform, or not, a lumbar puncture in a neonate with fever and the possibility of infection. You might frame your PICO as 'In neonates with suspected sepsis (P), does a CRP threshold of >20 mg/L (I) compared with >10 mg/L (C) diagnose as many babies with meningitis (O)?' Not a unreasonable question to ask, not clearly 'limited' beyond maybe wondering if a different set of numbers would be better to use instead.What the question does not do is explore the underlying assumptions: that diagnosing meningitis will lead to treatment change in some way, that an undocumented meningeal infection will lead to negative consequence, or that the act of lumbar puncture may affect how the child is viewed, and their health fragility, for the whole of their childhood and maybe beyond. These are beyond the scope of the question. It is never wrong to scope-indeed we have to, or every question would be 'When I act, or not, will the universe be better or worse for the whole of eternity?' It is worth thinking what the edges of our box are though, and sometimes questioning if we have the edges in the right place.