You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Health Services Research, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abigail M Methley, Stephen Campbell, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Rosalind McNally, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 17 | 26% |
| Japan | 5 | 8% |
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Pakistan | 2 | 3% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 26 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 39 | 60% |
| Scientists | 15 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3,151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 3146 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 528 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 394 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 277 | 9% |
| Researcher | 188 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 136 | 4% |
| Other | 530 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1098 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 564 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 413 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 200 | 6% |
| Psychology | 154 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 83 | 3% |
| Other | 545 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1192 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2024.
All research outputs
#740,428
of 25,756,531 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#154
of 8,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,979
of 371,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#2
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,761 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.