Formulating a Research Question

#An answerable question gives the work a focus

Cochrane explains that a well-framed review question guides study eligibility, searching, data collection, synthesis and presentation. It calls for questions important to people making healthcare decisions, including attention to both benefits and harms.

Read what uncertainty the work is meant to address and who needs the answer. A broad topic such as a disease name is not yet a precise research question. This source concerns systematic reviews of interventions; its question-framing concepts should not be treated as one design formula for every kind of research.

Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: scope and questions of intervention reviews

#Define the population, comparison and outcomes

For intervention reviews, Cochrane describes PICO: population, intervention, comparison and outcome. It distinguishes the question defining a review's eligibility, the question for each synthesis, and what the included studies actually investigated.

Read each component carefully enough to see which comparison is being made and which outcomes matter. A review can have a broad scope while answering narrower questions in separate analyses. Planned scope and available studies may differ, so the question alone does not establish applicability of the eventual findings.

Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: scope and questions of intervention reviews

#Breadth and feasibility need a reason

Cochrane describes tradeoffs between broad and narrow reviews. Broad scope can address more settings but also bring differences between interventions or populations; narrow questions can be easier to interpret but may have too few studies. It also emphasizes stakeholders, existing knowledge and practical feasibility.

Read why a boundary was chosen and whether important groups or harms fall outside it. A larger evidence search is not automatically more useful if the combined studies do not answer a coherent comparison. The intended users can help determine which outcomes and distinctions are worth preserving.

Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: scope and questions of intervention reviews

#The question should connect to a documented plan

Cochrane describes defining objectives and methods before undertaking a review, while SPIRIT describes a trial protocol as a record of planned design and conduct. The plan lets readers see how the study or review intends to answer its question.

Read whether the methods and outcomes actually match the stated objective, and whether later changes are explained. A clear question does not by itself ensure a sound design, sufficient data or ethical conduct. Mynd is explaining research literacy, not presenting an approved study or a full protocol-development service.

Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: scope and questions of intervention reviews / Cochrane Handbook: reporting protocols and completed reviews / SPIRIT 2025: reporting randomized-trial protocols

Source note

The sections above were checked against the linked sources. No clinical review has been performed. This is general research education, not a clinical guideline.