In the process of guideline development and construction of clinical questions, it is necessary to guide clinicians to propose clinical problems into PICO (population, intervention, control, outcome) structured clinical questions. However, there are still unclear criteria to define and judge the appropriateness of the width of the PICO elements of a clinical question. Either too wide or too narrow can make the PICO question unsuitable to be a question for clinical practice guidelines to answer. We graded the clinical questions to be eight grades (3, 2, 1, 0, −1, −2, −3, mixed) according to the number of the PIC elements, which obviously needed to be adjusted to evaluate applicability of the appropriateness of the width of the clinical questions. Our work can provide methodological references for clinicians and guideline developers.
When prioritizing clinical questions in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, clinical questions with high recognition and low variability, or high score and less disagreement among experts were often prioritized, while questions with high recognition but high variability were excluded. By this approach, clinical questions with practical value but also showed high variability due to different causes were not accepted as priorities. There were some methodological and clinical limitations by doing so. By summarizing the causes and connotations of expert opinion variability in terms of clinical experience, expertise and values, this paper analyzed the advantages of the variability quantification application, and proposed corresponding methodological recommendations, so as to provide references for guideline developers in the priority selection of clinical questions.