{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028281363306744016, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0014503263234227702, 'mean_word_length': 5.106194690265487, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
There’s More Than One Way to Skin a CAT

In a recent editorial,1 we presented the many lives that a Critically Appraised Topic (CAT) can take upon publication. Through the lens of education, research, and clinical practice, CATs can provide a framework for advancing the external evidence by steering educational content, future research endeavors, and clinical decisions. Within this issue of IJATT, we present an additional consideration for CATs. As readers are well aware, CATs typically follow the Patient, Intervention, Control/Comparison, Outcome (PICO) format for a focused clinical question and then set out to answer that question. These CATs are a snapshot of the most current research relevant to that question, which is appraised for validity and then synthesized in a clinical bottom line (the answer). By definition, CATs represent smaller scale systematic reviews and include a strong clinical focus. One of the most important considerations for a CAT is the development of a truly focused clinical question (the PICO). The PICO question is the foundation on which the search strategy is developed,2 and also provides the framework for the subsequent analyses used to answer that question. However, the specific outcomes selected, the analyses, and the critical appraisal can vary; investigators might have different approaches to even very similar problems . . .