Y, al principio, fue la pregunta de investigación …Los formatos PICO, PECO, SPIDER y FINER

  1. Sánchez-Martín, Micaela 1
  2. Pedreño Plana, Marina 1
  3. Ponce Gea, Ana Isabel 1
  4. Navarro-Mateu, Fernando 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Revista:
Espiral. Cuadernos del profesorado

ISSN: 1988-7701

Ano de publicación: 2023

Volume: 16

Número: 32

Páxinas: 126-136

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.25115/ECP.V16I32.9102 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Espiral. Cuadernos del profesorado

Resumo

Designing a clear and structured research question facilitates the research process and increases the chances of success. The characteristics of the PICO format (P: Study population or participants; I: Intervention; C: Comparison; and O: the expected Outcome or effect of the intervention) and other alternatives that have been proposed are discussed. later: PECO (Population, Exposure, Comparison, O-result), SPIDER (Sample-sample, PI-Phenomenon of Interest- phenomenon of interest, Design-design, Evaluation- evaluation and Research type or type of investigation) and FINER (Feasible -feasible, Interesting-interesting, Novel-novel, Ethical-ethical and Relevant-relevant). The teaching of these formats and their practice in teaching settings will facilitate their introduction among young researchers.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ali, M. J. (2021). The science and philosophy of manuscript rejection. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 69(7), 1934-1935. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijo.IJO_1097_21
  • Baños, R., Sánchez-Martín, M., Navarro-Mateu, F., & Granero-Gallegos, A. (2021). Educación física basada en evidencias: Ventajas e inconvenientes. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado. Continuación de la antigua Revista de Escuelas Normales, 96(35.2). https://doi.org/10.47553/rifop.v97i35.2.88336
  • Bouter, L. M., & Riet, G. ter. (2021). Replication Research Series-Paper 2: Empirical research must be replicated before its findings can be trusted. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 129, 188-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.032
  • Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637-644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
  • Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938
  • Fandino, W. (2019). Formulating a good research question: Pearls and pitfalls. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 63(8), 611-616. https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.IJA_198_19
  • Fineout-Overholt, E., & Johnston, L. (2005). Teaching EBP: Asking searchable, answerable clinical questions. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2(3), 157-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2005.00032.x
  • Greenhalgh, T. (5ª Ed.) (2015). Cómo leer un artículo científico. Las bases de la Medicina Basada en la Evidencia. Elsevier.
  • Lopes, F. O. de A., Hurtado-Puerto, A. M., Moreno, H., Fregni, F., Falcão, D. P., & Amorim, R. F. B. de. (2016). Creating a research idea: Steps and challenges. Geriatrics, Gerontology and Aging, 10(3), 118-125. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2447-211520161600034
  • Martínez Díaz, J. D., Ortega Chacón, V., & Muñoz Ronda, F. J. (2016). El diseño de preguntas clínicas en la práctica basada en la evidencia: Modelos de formulación. Enfermería Global, 15(43), 431-438. https://doi.org/10.6018/eglobal.15.3.239221
  • McKeon, J. M. M., & McKeon, P. O. (2015). PICO: A Hot Topic in Evidence-Based Practice. International Journal of Athletic Therapy & Training, 20(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijatt.2014-0141
  • Methley, A. M., Campbell, S., Chew-Graham, C., McNally, R., & Cheraghi-Sohi, S. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
  • Mintzker, Y., Blum, D., & Adler, L. (2022). Replacing PICO in non-interventional studies. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, bmjebm-2021-111889. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111889
  • Navarro-Mateu, F., & Martín García-Sancho, J. (2007). Formulación de preguntas clínicas e introducción a la estrategia de búsqueda de información. En Atención Sanitaria Basada en la Evidencia. Su aplicación a la práctica clínica. (pp. 47-71). Consejería de Sanidad de la Región de Murcia. http://www.murciasalud.es/recursos/ficheros/136606-capitulo_2.pdf
  • Nishikawa-Pacher, A. (2022). Research Questions with PICO: A Universal Mnemonic. Publications, 10(3), Art. 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030021
  • Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Psychology. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science (New York, N.Y.), 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
  • Porto-Castro, A. M. (2022). The use of technological resources as facilitators of learning in attention to diversity. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado, 15(31), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v15i31.7822
  • Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3), A12-13. https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12
  • Riva, J. J., Malik, K. M. P., Burnie, S. J., Endicott, A. R., & Busse, J. W. (2012). What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 56(3), 167-171.
  • Sackett, D. L., & Wennberg, J. E. (1997). Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 315(7123), 1636. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1636
  • Sánchez-Martín, M., Navarro-Mateu, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2022). Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Education. Espiral. Cuadernos del Profesorado., 15(30), 108-120. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v15i30.7860
  • Schiavenato, M., & Chu, F. (2021). PICO: What it is and what it is not. Nurse Education in Practice, 56, 103194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103194
  • Schwab, S., Janiaud, P., Dayan, M., Amrhein, V., Panczak, R., Palagi, P., Hemkens, L., Ramon, M., Rothen, N., Senn, S., Furrer, E., & Held, L. (2021). Ten simple rules in good research practice for early career researchers. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ten-simple-rules-in-good-research-practice-for-Schwab-Janiaud/c6169cd4c5452312a3222e35c5671549511c77cc
  • Stark, M., & Woods, B. (2022). Developing an Idea into a Research Question. Clinical Spine Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001393
  • Thabane, L., Thomas, T., Ye, C., & Paul, J. (2009). Posing the research question: Not so simple. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia = Journal Canadien D’anesthesie, 56(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-008-9007-4
  • Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(23), 6454-6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113
Fonte de datos: Dialnet