MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033045241 · doi:10.1186/1471-2253-13-44

A look at the potential association between PICOT framing of a research question and the quality of reporting of analgesia RCTs

2013· article· en· W2033045241 on OpenAlexafffund
Victoria Borg Debono, Shiyuan Zhang, Chenglin Ye, James Paul, Aman Arya, Lindsay Hurlburt, Yamini Murthy, Lehana Thabane

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Anesthesiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAnesthesiologyFraming (construction)MedicineAssociation (psychology)Pain medicineQuality (philosophy)Alternative medicineAnesthesiaPsychologyHistoryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Methodologists have proposed the formation of a good research question to initiate the process of developing a research protocol that will guide the design, conduct and analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and help improve the quality of reporting such studies. Five constituents of a good research question based on the PICOT framing include: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Time-frame of outcome assessment. The aim of this study was to analyze if the presence a structured research question, in PICOT format, in RCTs used within a 2010 meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of femoral nerve blocks after total knee arthroplasty, is independently associated with improved quality of reporting. METHODS: Twenty-three RCT reports were assessed for the quality of reporting and then examined for the presence of the five constituents of a structured research question based on PICOT framing. We created a PICOT score (predictor variable), with a possible score between 0 and 5; one point for every constituent that was included. Our outcome variable was a 14 point overall reporting quality score (OQRS) and a 3 point key methodological items score (KMIS) based on the proper reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and numbers analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. Both scores, OQRS and KMIS, are based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. A multivariable regression analysis was conducted to determine if PICOT score was independently associated with OQRS and KMIS. RESULTS: A completely structured PICOT score question was found in 2 of the 23 RCTs evaluated. Although not statistically significant, higher PICOT was associated with higher OQRS [IRR: 1.267; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.984, 1.630; p = 0.066] but not KMIS (1.061 (0.515, 2.188); 0.872). These results are comparable to those from a similar study in terms of the direction and range of IRRs estimates. The results need to be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that PICOT framing of a research question in anesthesia-related RCTs is not often followed. Even though a statistically significant association with higher OQRS was not found, PICOT framing of a research question is still an important attribute within all RCTs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.709
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.893
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.7090.893
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.676
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.117 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC AnesthesiologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207