It was written by Susan O’Connell and Sara Bartlome
introduction
Systematic Literature Review (SLR) intends to answer specific research questions by translating questions into search terms and developing literature search strategies to effectively identify related posted evidence. In the Health Economy and Results (HEOR), SLRs are essential to identify clinical and/or economic evidence gaps and provide information on new research. Therefore, HEOR’s SLR supports the development of data designed to deliver product value and to play a role as a tool for repayment decision making for new medical intervention and technology. To accurately configure SLR questions with the goal of the most relevant evidence of inclusion, is basic in forming the recommendation of evidence -based medical recommendations.
What is Pico?
To do your best in the SLR, you need a clear and concentrated review question, which serves as a foundation for a strong literature search. Therefore, translating this question into an accurate search strategy is an important stage and is best achieved by applying the appropriate framework. Other frameworks Depending on the type of research question, it is selected for the de novo SLR, and the general framework includes:
-
- Picobloodmethod, meNTERVENTION, aspirateomparator, outcomes)
- peak (bloodmethod, meNTERVENTION, aspirateomparator, oUTCOMES, STUDY type)
- Spice (SEtting, bloodERFection, meNTERVENTION, aspirateOntrol, Eevaluation)
- Spider (spiderSsufficient, bloodHenomenon, interested dEsign, Eevaluation, REsearch type)
PICO is one of the most widely known approaches in framing questions about clinical SLRs, and using a well -defined PICO increases the rigidity and application of SLR results. In the future, the PICO survey and priority are the core stages of the new EU joint clinical evaluation (JCA) process, and to make sure that the final JCA output is associated with all EU member states.
Why is SLR question so important?
Translating the review questions into a well -defined PICO means that you can develop an exact search strategy to identify the relevant evidence. Well -defined Pico can support the evaluation of the quality of evidence, which can strengthen the case of clinical and/or cost efficiency for medical intervention and technology. On the contrary, PICO, which is not defined properly, limits the applicability and usefulness of the SLR.
In addition, SLRs are often separated and developed. Instead, they are used to support the development of other materials such as GVD (Global Value Dossiers), Health Technology Assessments (HTA), License, Patients and Product Information Documents, and are included as a major evidence for supporting clinical decisions. Therefore, well -designed PICO frameworks can be a powerful tool for market access.
Major considerations for the maximum Pico maximum
Since a single PICO framework may not answer all aspects of the research question, spending time to carefully explore the main goals of the question to be answered can greatly affect the relevance of the search strategy. Considering the development of this framework, the approach to the development of the framework helps to improve PICO definition and whether multiple picos may be needed to ensure comprehensive and goal search strategies (Table 1).
Table 1: Major considerations when developing a new PICO framework for HEOR 
There are many fundamental elements to consider before building a search strategy for a simple review question. Therefore, it is important to improve the Pico before performing the search in order not to find that the question was not effectively dealt with, insufficient, insufficient, insufficient, and intended. In addition, maximizing PICO at the beginning of the process, a structural and objective approach to answers to the research questions, so that the existing evidence does not indicate the development of PICO, but the framework guides the evidence search.
It is an important part of the PICO development process, including major stakeholders such as patient representatives or clinical trials. Experts in the treatment area can provide insight into the nuances of the disease that may not be clear immediately, but the patient’s representatives are important when they need to prioritize the results. Review methodologists (information experts, systematic reviewers), as well as the treatment area experts in the development of PICO, will continue to focus on, guide the stakeholders, and see if there is a clear understanding of what Pico can provide. The importance of various inputs in the development process is newly revealed by the emergence of EU JCA. Stakeholder insights and medical frameworks for various EU member states will be more and more relevant. Pico development JCA forms the company’s follow -up market access decision.
conclusion
Pico forms a backbone of review and provides a systematic analysis edge structure. Maximizing Pico not only strengthens the review, but also improves the effects and usefulness of the conclusion. However, if Pico is not defined properly, it can produce a systematic review that does not achieve a considerable time and effort to achieve its intended goals.
For more information on the scope of PICO and development, please contact Source Health Economics, a HEOR consulting that specializes in creating evidence, health economy and communication.
