EP 569 Focused Literature Searching Through Clinical Question Framing Improves Efficiency of Evidence Synthesis

Clicks: 1
ID: 323924
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #255 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Aim Traditional evidence collation often relies on broad “scoop-all” searches and ranking evidence primarily by study design, generating large volumes of heterogeneous and often low-relevance studies. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is a globally adopted methodology for guideline development, underpinned by focused evidence synthesis using the PICO framework to ensure relevance of populations and outcomes. We compared a traditional keyword-based search with a focused search guided by a PICO-framed clinical question. Methods A clinical question, “Does tranexamic acid (TXA) improve outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB)?”, was reframed using PICO: Population—adults with LGIB; Intervention—TXA; Comparator—placebo or alternative interventions; Outcomes—mortality, re-bleeding, thrombosis, blood transfusion, or need for surgery. A clinician-performed PubMed search (“tranexamic acid” AND “lower gastrointestinal bleeding”) was compared with a PICO-guided search of MEDLINE and Embase conducted by an information specialist librarian. Time required for searching and screening was recorded. Results The PubMed search produced 259 titles within two minutes and required 244 minutes of screening. The PICO-guided approach generated 21 titles in 90 minutes, with 18 minutes of screening (56% reduction in total time and 93% reduction in screening time; p<0.05). Both approaches identified the same key studies (three randomised controlled trials and one large observational study). Conclusions Framing clinical questions to guide focused literature searching markedly reduced screening burden without loss of key evidence. The ability to rapidly identify pertinent studies may be useful for day-to-day clinical decision-making, updating existing guidance, and informing practice where formal guidelines are not available.
Reference Key
openalex_W7172512920 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Zeneera Yusuf, Yasuko Maeda
Journal the british journal of surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bjs/znag087.623
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znag087.623
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.