Talk:PICO process
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
little doubt,...
[edit]...hello everybody,...
...i was reviewing this article,... and when i go to the spanish version of the same,... shows me that article doesn't exists,...
...i would likes to asks if anyone here,... or there,... knows what happened to them,... and if could i has access to the last version of the same (in spanish),... before deleted,... if it was,...
...thanking you'll so, so much for the possible help,... and with my regards,... --Cpant23 (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Page title and adding more research question frameworks
[edit]Hi, I wonder if 'PICO Framework' or 'PICO question' or even 'Question setting tools' is a more appropriate title for this page? I would like to add other question setting tools e.g. ECLIPSE, SPIDER, MIP, and links further information on these. Are they appropriate here? thanks for your help--JudyWrightUniLeeds (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
PICO = PICOS?
[edit]Zaorsky et al. report, "PICOS/PRISMA methods were used to identify published English-language comparative studies on PubMed (from 1980 to 2015)": Is PICOS what is discussed in this article? Why do they have an additional 'S'? Please clarify in this article, either explaining the 'S', or clearly differentiating PICO from PICOS. -- Newagelink (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Alternative names
[edit]Hello. In the article, one sentence says: Alternatives such as SPICE and PECO (among many others) can also be used. Some authors suggest adding T and S, as follows [...].
Are 'SPICE' and 'PECO' correct? If yes, why T as this letter is used in neither PICO, SPICE nor PECO? And why not mentioning the E present in both SPICE and PECO?
It would be very useful to add some references and correct this part so that it makes sense to the readers.