Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Can we have both?
- Mangesh Thorat (30 December 2008)
-
PICO vs Short cut
- David A Richards (30 December 2008)
-
PICO vs Short Cut
- Oluwole A. Adebo (2 January 2009)
-
PICO vs short-cut
- Neelam Potdar (4 January 2009)
-
Pico vs Shortcut
- Anthony Lwegaba (4 January 2009)
-
Different strokes may be needed for different folks
- Colin P Bradley (5 January 2009)
-
Pico Papers
- George T Lewith (7 January 2009)
-
PICO vs Short-cuts
- Dougal J Jeffries (8 January 2009)
-
PICO wins
- Charles Warlow (11 January 2009)
-
Re: PICO wins
- Annabel Bentley (9 February 2009)
-
Re: PICO wins
- Annabel Bentley (9 February 2009)
-
Re: PICO wins and Podcasts
- Anu Jacob (14 May 2009)
|
|
|||
|
Mangesh Thorat, Post Doctoral Research Fellow IU School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202
Send response to journal:
|
As an online reader, I would first read short-cut and if it sounds interesting, then read the PICO version and proceed to full article if I need to know more. As a reader of print-version, PICO will be the preferred format; and it be a preferred format from Researcher viewpoint also. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David A Richards, Professor University of Exeter, EX4
Send response to journal:
|
I much prefer the PICO version Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Oluwole A. Adebo, Professor of Surgery Coll. Of Medicine, Univertsity of Ibadan, Nigeria
Send response to journal:
|
I believe the short cut provides sufficient information to motivate interested readers to further pursue the full text, while updating general readers regarding the salient content. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Neelam Potdar, Clinical Lecturer University of Leicester, UK
Send response to journal:
|
As an author I would prefer the short-cut version. PICO would be great for an online 'summary' of the article, interested reader can then gain access to the full text version. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anthony Lwegaba, lecturer University of West Indies, Cave Hill campus, School of clinical Medicine and Research, Barbados
Send response to journal:
|
The Pico is better because it gives a balanced view or critical appraisal of the paper while the Shortcut doesn't. For brevity, the BMJ box of study summary (what is the study, what is known, what did this study find, what did it add?, if it precedes the Pico, could be very useful for scan-reading and even for professionals who find it comfortable to read at the level of the lay public. Competing interests: I teach evidence-based medicine |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Colin P Bradley, Professor of General Practice University College Cork Ireland (no postcode)
Send response to journal:
|
I would support the suggestion of Mangesh Thorat to go with both for the time being. For those brought up (or into) the ways of evidence based medicine (as our recent graduates ought to be) the PICO format ought to be preferable as it provides a pithy summary of the evidence acquired in a way that exposes any limitations or flaws very starkly and minimises any over or understatement of conclusions. However, the short summary is an easier read and does make the study rather more accessible to those older physicians who would be more used to receiving their information in this rather more digestible format. For the visually inclined the graphs are also a very accessible summary which are not an integral part of the PICO format. A further advantage of providing both is that older graduates will become familarised with how PICO formated abstracts in other publications translate into the language of their youth. Furthermore, while basking in the satiety of the recent festive season, one is still inclined to want to have one's cake while also having eaten it. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
George T Lewith, Professor of Health Research University of Southampton, Primary Medical Care, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, SO16 5ST
Send response to journal:
|
Clinicians often don’t have time to read articles in detail. The new abridged Pico version of articles now available through the BMJ provides an excellent new facility by abstracting the salient points in a thoughtful and critical manner and then presenting them to the clinician in concise format. The addition of an editorial comment provides academic balance. Full details of the complete articles are and will continue to be available on the BMJ website so those wishing to understand more will have easy access to all the relevant data. This approach allows the BMJ to use the best of electronic and paper publishing to make available more high quality research. I personally believe this is a superb use of publishing current technology making appropriate information available to those who need it.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dougal J Jeffries, GP St Mary's, Isles of Scilly TR21 0HE
Send response to journal:
|
Despite being one of the 'older physicians' (I never thought the day would come) alluded to above, I too far prefer the PICO version - it gives enough of the design of the study to enable one to decide whther it is worth looking further, whereas the Short cuts version is too woolly. I would also like to say that I value the printed version of the BMJ (and everything else from George Eliot to Posy Simmons) over the online one. I like my information to be easily portable, easy to read, and interruptable at will. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Charles Warlow, Emeritus Professor of Medical Neurology University of Edinburgh, EH4 2XU
Send response to journal:
|
Even as an older person at the end of day 5 of 'retirement' I really do think the time has come to access research papers just on the web, and yet to be alerted briefly to what they are all about in the paper version of the journal, in this case the BMJ - and in enough detail to pick up the message and how reliable it is. ELPS was frustrating becaue it was neither one thing nor the other, but PICOs are clearly shortened articles, and have the advantage of being written by the authors of the main papers. Short cuts are too brief for the purpose. What podcasts have to add is quite beyond me, but then I have only just got my ipod up and running. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Annabel Bentley, Asst Medical Director, Bupa WC1A
Send response to journal:
|
I prefer PICO. How about: - in print BMJ: just have PICO, as you have limited space in print. - but in electronic BMJ, please include both, as you have potentially "unlimited" space/word length thanks Competing interests: head of health info at Bupa - http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/asp/about/ |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Annabel Bentley, Assistant Medical Director Bupa, WC1A
Send response to journal:
|
Will you be including PICOs in all BMJ press releases? Will you be standardising the format of statistics in PICOs? thank you Competing interests: head of health info at Bupa - http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/asp/about |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anu Jacob, Consultant Walton Centre, Liverpool
Send response to journal:
|
Yes PICO wins. The podcasts are great too! My dreary one hour drive( one way) to work has been transformed into an hour of education. And it is not limited to the BMJ ( NEJM, JAMA, Neurology, all have podcasts...). That adds up to a lo..ots of CPD!....or may be I am just a sad person! Competing interests: None declared |
|||