Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication

Schlosser, Ralf W.; Koul, Rajinder; Costello, John

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2006.06.008

Cited by 75 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Other useful approaches exist in the literature. 22,24 We focused on the PICOT format, because it is a routinely advocated approach in framing research questions in evidence-based medicine. 25 The use of PICOT has also been shown to be associated with improvements in search results for clinical information in PubMed.…”

Section: Is It Novel?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Posing the research question: not so simple

Thabane

Thomas

et al. 2008

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

146

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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, crosssectional 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. RésuméObjectif La re´ussite de tout processus de recherche s'appuie en partie sur la capacite´des chercheurs a`traduire un proble`me clinique en question de recherche, une taˆche ardue pour les chercheurs de´butants. L'approche PICOT exige que la formulation de la question de recherche spe´cifie la Population cible, l'Intervention al 'e´tude, l'intervention de Comparaison, les devenirs cle´s (Outcomes) et un cadre Temporel au cours duquel les devenirs sont e´value´s. Cet article de´crit l'utilisation de la structure PICOT dans la formulation des questions de recherche et examine les crite`res PICOT lorsqu'ils sont applique´s à la litte´rature en anesthe´sie. Nous fournissons e´galement une feuille de route visant a`l'application du format PICOT pour identifier et formuler des questions de recherche claires. Méthode En plus de recherches sur MEDLINE pour trouver la litte´rature touchant a`la formulation de questions de recherche, nous avons effectue´une re´vision

show abstract

Section: Is It Novel?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Posing the research question: not so simple

Thabane

Thomas

et al. 2008

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

146

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We carefully constructed a specific question to address these aims and to direct this systematic review. We developed the question using the PICO (Patient/Population Intervention Comparison Outcome) method [64], a recognized technique for developing a well-built and clinically relevant question [64][65][66]. We also phrased the question in a neutral manner to avoid bias toward the efficacy of the intervention and allow for an objective assessment of the scientific literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review

Sawers¹,

Hafner²

2013

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees (MPKs) have been developed as an alternative to non-microprocessorcontrolled knees (NMPKs) to address challenges facing individuals with lower-limb loss. A body of scientific literature comparing MPKs and NMPKs exists but has yet to be critically appraised. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to examine outcomes associated with the use of these interventions among individuals with transfemoral limb loss. A search of biomedical databases identified 241 publications, of which 27 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were reviewed for methodological quality and content. We developed 28 empirical evidence statements (EESs) in 9 outcome categories (metabolic energy expenditure, activity, cognitive demand, gait mechanics, environmental obstacle negotiation, safety, preference and satisfaction, economics, and health and quality of life) based on findings in the literature. The level of evidence supporting these EESs varied due to quantity, quality, and consistency of the results. EESs supported by a moderate level of evidence that noted significant differences between MPKs and NMPKs were derived in five of the nine outcome categories. The results from this review suggest that evidence exists to inform clinical practice and that additional research is needed to confirm existing evidence and better understand outcomes associated with the use of NMPKs and MPKs.Key words: amputation, artificial limb, function, gait, knee, microprocessor, outcome, preference, rehabilitation, safety. Abbreviations: AAOP = American Academy of Orthotists andProsthetists, ABC = Activities-specific Balance Confidence, CWS = controlled walking speed, DLW = doubly labeled water, EBP = evidence-based practice, EES = empirical evidence statement, EV = external validity, GRF = ground reaction force, HAI = Hill Assessment Index, HRQL = health-related quality of life, IV = internal validity, LLL = lower-limb loss, MFCL = Medicare Functional Classification Level, MP = microprocessor, MPC = microprocessor control, MPK = microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee, MRPP = Montreal Rehabilitation Performance Profile, NMPK = non-microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knee, O 2 = oxygen, O&P = orthotic and prosthetic, PAEE = physical activity-related energy expenditure, PCBS = Prosthetic Cognitive Burden Scale, PCI = physiological cost index, PEQ = Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire, PEQ-A = PEQ Addendum, PRO = patient-reported outcome, QALY = quality adjusted life year, QOL = quality of life, RPE = rating of perceived exertion, SAI = Stair Assessment Index, SF-36 = 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, SOT = sensory organization test, SSWS = selfselected walking speed, SSC = State of the Science Conference, TDEE = total daily energy expenditure, TFLL = transfemoral limb loss.

show abstract

“…In other work addressing the components of a template -Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome -the acronym PICO evolved, subsequently with an added "T" to represent Time (PICOT). 22,24 Other frameworks have been developed as well, representing variation but ultimately serving the same purpose. The Person, Environments, Stakeholders, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PESICO) framework 24 is an example of an alternate form.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…22,24 Other frameworks have been developed as well, representing variation but ultimately serving the same purpose. The Person, Environments, Stakeholders, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PESICO) framework 24 is an example of an alternate form. Regardless of the framework used, if any, to structure the clinical question, how precisely the clinical question is posed determines the initial steps that guide the first foray into the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding a needle in the haystack: performing an in-depth literature search to answer a clinical question

George¹,

Ferguson²,

Pearce³

2014

NRR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based practice requires clinicians to review current literature for evidencebased information that demonstrates solutions for clinical problems. The daunting process of navigating extensive electronic publication sources, including citation databases, guidelines, and clinical proceedings, can feel much like finding a needle in the proverbial haystack. Knowing where to get information and strategically maneuvering search terms, Boolean operators, and available delimiters requires investment in learning how they work and then skillful deployment. Time spent in learning the systems is gained back by executing a well-honed search that yields citations that are appropriate for the clinical problem. Search terms and use of effective investigative tools focus the search and produce a comprehensive listing of references. The purpose of this article was to detail the steps in completing a comprehensive literature search when focused on a clinical question. Location of pertinent literature, the multiple characteristics of citation databases and instruction on how to use them, as well as how to manage the located citations are included.

show abstract

Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication

Cited by 75 publications

References 18 publications

Posing the research question: not so simple

Posing the research question: not so simple

Outcomes associated with the use of microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees among individuals with unilateral transfemoral limb loss: A systematic review

Finding a needle in the haystack: performing an in-depth literature search to answer a clinical question

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About