Build a structured research question using PICO, PICOS, SPIDER, PEO, PIRD, CoCoPop, or CIMO. Returns a one-sentence question, a component breakdown, and an operationalisation checklist for protocols, theses, and grant applications.
Intervention questions in medicine, nursing, public health, and clinical research.
Who is the question about? Be precise about age, sex, condition severity, and setting.
What exposure or treatment are you studying?
What is the alternative or control? Use 'usual care' or 'no intervention' if applicable.
Be specific about the metric and time horizon.
In [population], does [intervention] compared with [comparator] affect [outcome]?
Research questions are not interchangeable. The framework you choose determines the inclusion criteria, the search strategy, the data extraction template, the risk-of-bias tool, and the synthesis plan. Picking the wrong framework, or writing the right framework loosely, propagates errors through every downstream decision in a protocol. The Cochrane Handbook, JBI Reviewers' Manual, and the PRISMA-P statement all open with the same instruction: define the question before you search.
PICO is the default for intervention reviews because it forces a comparator. A thesis question that reads "the effect of yoga on stress" is rejected by examiners because it has no comparator. The PICO version, "In adults with generalised anxiety disorder, does an 8-week yoga programme compared with waitlist control reduce GAD-7 scores at 12 weeks," is defensible. It tells the reviewer what was measured, in whom, against what, with what tool, and at what time point. The same precision is what eligibility criteria, search concept blocks, and meta-analysis subgroup plans depend on.
For qualitative research, PICO breaks down because there is no Intervention or Comparator to extract. SPIDER (Cooke, Smith, Booth, 2012) replaces those missing slots with Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type. The qualitative review and the qualitative thesis chapter both require a SPIDER-style question to satisfy COREQ or SRQR reporting standards.
For diagnostic test accuracy, PIRD is the right choice because it makes the reference standard explicit. STARD reporting fails when the index test and the reference standard are not separately defined; PIRD prevents that. For prevalence questions, CoCoPop (JBI's framework for prevalence reviews) separates Condition from Context from Population, which is the structure JBI's prevalence review tool expects. Each framework was developed for a reason; the wrong framework forces awkward retrofitting.
When the question is harder than a single framework can handle, register the protocol in PROSPERO with multiple sub-questions, each in its own framework. For complex or multi-stage questions, the right next step is often a scoping review that maps the evidence before a focused systematic review is feasible.
Want a PhD methodologist to handle the whole project?
Get a research-question-to-protocol pipeline written by a PhD methodologist, including PROSPERO registration and PRISMA-ready inclusion criteria. From $750 · Quote in under 1 hour · Pay only after you approve scope.
It turns a working research topic into a structured, framework-aligned research question. Pick a framework (PICO, PICOS, SPIDER, PEO, PIRD, CoCoPop, or CIMO), fill in each component, and the tool returns a one-sentence question, a component-by-component breakdown, and an operationalisation checklist you can paste into your protocol or thesis introduction.
PICO is for intervention questions with a comparator. PICOS adds a study-design constraint, used in systematic-review protocols. SPIDER is for qualitative or mixed-methods questions. PEO is for aetiology and risk-factor questions in epidemiology. PIRD is for diagnostic test accuracy. CoCoPop is for prevalence and incidence. CIMO is for management, organisational, and policy research. The tool shows when each framework fits when you select it.
A vague research question produces a vague search strategy and an unfocused thesis. Frameworks force precision: each component is defined and measurable. PRISMA and Cochrane handbook expect structured questions because reviewers cannot evaluate the search, screening, or synthesis without them. Thesis examiners and grant reviewers apply the same standard.
No. The tool does not call a language model. It is a structured template that maps your inputs into the canonical framework wording. Synthesis and operational definitions still require you to read methodological literature; the tool does not replace that work.
Yes. PICO, PICOS, SPIDER, PEO, PIRD, and CoCoPop are the question frameworks recommended by JBI and the Cochrane Handbook for different review types. Use the output to draft your protocol, your inclusion criteria, and your search-term concept blocks. Register the protocol in PROSPERO before searching.
Specific enough to write inclusion criteria from. The Population component needs age range, condition, severity, and setting. The Intervention component needs dosage, frequency, and duration if relevant. The Outcome component needs the measurement instrument and the time point. If your inputs read like a Wikipedia entry rather than a clinical-trial registration, tighten them.
Switching the framework regenerates the question. To compare PICO and PICOS, fill PICO first, copy or download the output, then switch to PICOS, add the Study design slot, and download again. For multi-question protocols, generate each question separately and combine in your protocol document.
PICO compares an intervention to a comparator and asks about an outcome. It needs a controllable, hypothetically randomisable exposure. PEO asks whether an exposure is associated with an outcome in a population, without a counterfactual comparator. Use PICO for clinical trials and intervention reviews; use PEO for observational aetiology questions where randomisation is impossible (smoking and lung cancer, lead exposure and IQ).
Use SPIDER when the research is qualitative or mixed-methods and the goal is to explore experiences, perceptions, or processes rather than to estimate effect sizes. PICO breaks down for qualitative research because there is no Intervention to test and no Comparator. SPIDER replaces those slots with Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type, which match how qualitative researchers actually frame questions.
No. All inputs and the generated output stay inside your browser. Nothing is sent to a server. Refreshing the page resets the form. Use the Download .md button to save your work as a Markdown file.
Translate your PICO into screening-ready inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Turn each PICO concept into Boolean search blocks for PubMed, Embase, Cochrane.
Build a thematic narrative review outline once your question is set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Sarah Mitchell holds a PhD in Biostatistics from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and has over 15 years of experience in systematic review methodology and meta-analysis. She has authored or co-authored 40+ peer-reviewed publications in journals including the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medical Research Methodology, and Research Synthesis Methods. A former Cochrane Review Group statistician and current editorial board member of Systematic Reviews, Dr. Mitchell has supervised 200+ evidence synthesis projects across clinical medicine, public health, and social sciences. She reviews all Research Gold tools to ensure statistical accuracy and compliance with Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020 standards.
From protocol registration to database search, screening, data extraction, and a publication-ready manuscript. We handle every step. Average turnaround: 2-4 weeks.