Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 1/2009

01-01-2009 | Special Article

Posing the research question: not so simple

Authors: Lehana Thabane, PhD, Tara Thomas, MD, Chenglin Ye, BSc, James Paul, MD

Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie | Issue 1/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The success of any research process relies, in part, on how well investigators are able to translate a clinical problem into a research question—a task that is not so simple for novice investigators. The PICOT approach requires that the framing of the research question specify the target Population, the Intervention of interest, the Comparator intervention, key Outcomes, and the Time frame over which the outcomes are assessed. This paper describes the use of the PICOT structure in framing research questions and examines PICOT criteria as applied to the anesthesia literature. We also provide a roadmap for applying the PICOT format in identifying and framing clear research questions.

Methods

In addition to searching MEDLINE for the literature on framing research questions, we performed a systematic review of articles published in four key anesthesia journals in 2006, including Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, the British Journal of Anaesthesia, and the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia.

Results

Three hundred thirteen articles (n = 313) were included in this review, with the following distribution by study design: 139 (44%) randomized controlled trials, 129 (41%) cohort studies, and 45 (15%) case-controlled, cross-sectional studies or systematic reviews. Overall, 96% (95% confidence interval: 91,100) of articles did not apply the PICOT approach in reporting the research question.

Conclusions

The PICOT approach may be helpful in defining and clearly stating the research question. It remains to be determined whether or not compliance with the PICOT style, or any other format for framing research questions, is associated with a higher quality of research reporting.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Casarett D, Karlawish JH, Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA 2000; 283: 2275–80.PubMedCrossRef Casarett D, Karlawish JH, Sugarman J. Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. JAMA 2000; 283: 2275–80.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ 1997; 315: 1636.PubMed Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ 1997; 315: 1636.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Posner MI. Cognition: an introduction. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman; 1973. Posner MI. Cognition: an introduction. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman; 1973.
4.
go back to reference Clouse RE. Proposing a good research question: a simple formula for success. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 279–80.PubMedCrossRef Clouse RE. Proposing a good research question: a simple formula for success. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 279–80.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, Grady DG, Newman TB. Designing clinical research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
7.
go back to reference Chulay M. Good research ideas for clinicians. AACN Adv Crit Care 2006; 17: 253–65.PubMed Chulay M. Good research ideas for clinicians. AACN Adv Crit Care 2006; 17: 253–65.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell PS. Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell PS. Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006.
10.
11.
go back to reference Beyea SC, Nicoll LH. Ten questions that will get you through any research report. AORN J 1997; 65: 978–9.PubMedCrossRef Beyea SC, Nicoll LH. Ten questions that will get you through any research report. AORN J 1997; 65: 978–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mulrow CD, Cook D, American College of Physicians. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians; 1998. Mulrow CD, Cook D, American College of Physicians. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians; 1998.
13.
go back to reference Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH. Critical appraisal of therapeutic interventions in the intensive care unit: human monoclonal antibody treatment in sepsis. Journal Club of the Hamilton Regional Critical Care Group. J Intensive Care Med 1992; 7: 275–82.PubMed Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH. Critical appraisal of therapeutic interventions in the intensive care unit: human monoclonal antibody treatment in sepsis. Journal Club of the Hamilton Regional Critical Care Group. J Intensive Care Med 1992; 7: 275–82.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A12–3.PubMed Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club 1995; 123: A12–3.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Johnston L, Fineout-Overholt E. Teaching EBP: “Getting from zero to one.” Moving from recognizing and admitting uncertainties to asking searchable, answerable questions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2005; 2: 98–102.PubMedCrossRef Johnston L, Fineout-Overholt E. Teaching EBP: “Getting from zero to one.” Moving from recognizing and admitting uncertainties to asking searchable, answerable questions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2005; 2: 98–102.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Franco G, Monduzzi G. Experimental validation of the evidence-based occupational health paradigm and of the PICO model in the decision making process applied by occupational health physicians (Italian). Med Lav 2004; 95: 423–30.PubMed Franco G, Monduzzi G. Experimental validation of the evidence-based occupational health paradigm and of the PICO model in the decision making process applied by occupational health physicians (Italian). Med Lav 2004; 95: 423–30.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 380–7.PubMed Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 380–7.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007; 7: 16.PubMedCrossRef Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2007; 7: 16.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 1984; 3: 361–73.PubMedCrossRef Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 1984; 3: 361–73.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Schlosser RW, Koul R, Costello J. Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. J Commun Disord 2007; 40: 225–38.PubMedCrossRef Schlosser RW, Koul R, Costello J. Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. J Commun Disord 2007; 40: 225–38.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference West CP. Why do our questions matter? Adopt the PICOT approach. The Hospitalist 2005; 9: 32–4. West CP. Why do our questions matter? Adopt the PICOT approach. The Hospitalist 2005; 9: 32–4.
26.
go back to reference Karkouti K, O’Farrell R, Yau TM, Beattie WS, Reducing Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery Research Group. Prediction of massive blood transfusion in cardiac surgery. Can J Anesth 2006; 53: 781–94.PubMedCrossRef Karkouti K, O’Farrell R, Yau TM, Beattie WS, Reducing Bleeding in Cardiac Surgery Research Group. Prediction of massive blood transfusion in cardiac surgery. Can J Anesth 2006; 53: 781–94.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Oshima T, Kasuya Y, Okumura Y, Murakami T, Dohi S. Identification of independent risk factors for fentanyl-induced cough. Can J Anesth 2006; 53: 753–8.PubMed Oshima T, Kasuya Y, Okumura Y, Murakami T, Dohi S. Identification of independent risk factors for fentanyl-induced cough. Can J Anesth 2006; 53: 753–8.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Posing the research question: not so simple
Authors
Lehana Thabane, PhD
Tara Thomas, MD
Chenglin Ye, BSc
James Paul, MD
Publication date
01-01-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie / Issue 1/2009
Print ISSN: 0832-610X
Electronic ISSN: 1496-8975
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-008-9007-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2009

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 1/2009 Go to the issue