# Situation: Staff nurses on an adult surgical ward want to know whether chewing gum after bowel surgery speeds the return of bowel function. They plan to search the literature and present the evidence to the ward's practice council. Which question is written in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format?

> source: MyMerci (mymerci.kr)  
> url: https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629963  
> language: ko  
> subject: Nursing Practice III — Care of Clients with Problems in Surgery, Oxygenation, Fluid and Electrolytes, Infectious, Inflammatory and Immunologic Response, Cellular Aberrations

## 문제

Situation: Staff nurses on an adult surgical ward want to know whether chewing gum after bowel surgery speeds the return of bowel function. They plan to search the literature and present the evidence to the ward's practice council.

Which question is written in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) format?

## 보기

1. How many adults on the ward develop an ileus after bowel surgery each year?
2. After bowel surgery in adults, does chewing gum help the bowel recover faster?
3. What is the experience of adults who chew gum after bowel surgery at home?
4. After bowel surgery in adults, does gum versus no gum shorten time to flatus? **✔ 정답**

**정답: 4**

## 해설

A PICO question names the population (adults after bowel surgery), the intervention (chewing gum), the comparison (no gum), and a measurable outcome (time to first flatus). A precise question makes the literature search focused and the answer usable. Questions without a comparison or with a vague outcome, questions about experiences, and questions about how often a problem occurs do not fit the intervention PICO format.

## 심화 해설

PICO format in clinical questions

A well-built clinical question is the foundation of evidence-based practice. When staff nurses ask whether chewing gum after bowel surgery speeds recovery, the question must be structured so that the search strategy and the answer are both precise. The PICO format does exactly that by separating the question into four explicit components.

Population refers to the specific group of interest. Intervention is the treatment or exposure being tested. Comparison is the alternative or control condition. Outcome is the measurable result used to judge effectiveness.

A true intervention PICO question must contain all four elements, and the outcome must be objectively measurable. When any component is missing or vague, the question cannot guide a focused literature search or produce a clinically usable answer.

Let us examine each option against this standard.

| Option | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome | PICO fit |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Adults on the ward | None stated | None | Number developing ileus | No — this is a background or incidence question, not an intervention question |
| 2 | Adults after bowel surgery | Chewing gum | Not stated | “Recover faster” — vague, not measurable | No — comparison is absent and outcome is not operationalized |
| 3 | Adults after bowel surgery | Chewing gum | None | Experience — qualitative, subjective | No — this is a qualitative or phenomenological question, not an intervention PICO |
| 4 | Adults after bowel surgery | Chewing gum | No gum | Time to first flatus | Yes — all four components are explicit and measurable |

Option 4 is the only choice that names the population, intervention, comparison, and a quantifiable outcome in a single sentence. Time to first flatus is a widely used marker of return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery because it is objective, easily documented, and clinically meaningful. Chapman and colleagues identified that outcome reporting for return of bowel function varies considerably across studies, which makes standardized endpoints such as time to flatus especially valuable for comparing evidence [3].

Watch out! A question that asks “how many” or “what is the experience” is not an intervention PICO question. Incidence questions describe a problem, and qualitative questions explore meaning. Neither tests a comparison between two approaches.

Key point! The comparison group is what transforms a general curiosity into a testable clinical question. Without “no gum” as the comparator, the question cannot isolate the effect of the intervention.

The clinical relevance of this PICO is supported by evidence on postoperative ileus. Keller and Stein describe postoperative ileus as common after colorectal surgery with a major impact on hospital length of stay, and they identify chewing gum as a safe, simple intervention to reduce ileus and associated costs [1]. A meta-analysis by Atkins and colleagues found that chewing gum after radical cystectomy led to faster recovery of bowel function, with a mean difference of -16.00 hours (95% CI -18.67 to -13.32) compared to placebo [2]. A broader meta-analysis of preoperative chewing gum in elective surgery also investigated the feasibility of this intervention, reflecting ongoing interest in gum as a low-risk adjunct [4].

For nursing licensure examinees, the practical lesson is that a well-formed PICO question directly shapes the search terms, the inclusion criteria for studies, and the applicability of findings to the ward population. When the outcome is defined as time to first flatus, the nurse can compare studies that used the same endpoint and determine whether the effect size is clinically meaningful for adult surgical patients.References (research sources)

- [1]Facilitating return of bowel function after colorectal surgery: alvimopan and gum chewing.Research articleKeller D, Stein SL (2013) · DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1351137

- [2]Chewing Gum After Radical Cystectomy With Urinary Diversion for Recovery of Intestinal Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Meta-analysis/systematic reviewAtkins CS, Tubog TD, Schaffer SK (2022) · DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2021.10.003

- [3]Systematic review of definitions and outcome measures for return of bowel function after gastrointestinal surgery.Meta-analysis/systematic reviewChapman SJ, Thorpe G, Vallance AE, Harji DP, Lee MJ, Fearnhead NS (2019) · DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.102

- [4]Efficacy and safety of preoperative chewing gum for undergoing elective surgery: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Meta-analysis/systematic reviewChen X, Chang C, Yuan X, Yang J, Li K (2023) · DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16604

## 임상 시나리오

Building a Searchable PICO QuestionTurning clinical curiosity into answerable evidence
A focused clinical question requires all four PICO elements: Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome. The outcome must be measurable, such as time to first flatus.

For the surgical ward question, the population is adults after bowel surgery, the intervention is chewing gum, the comparison is no gum, and the outcome is time to flatus. This structure guides a precise literature search.

CautionAvoid vague outcomes like recover faster or questions about experience. Without a comparison or a measurable endpoint, the question cannot yield an actionable answer for practice change.

## 핵심 개념

- **PICO** — A framework for formulating clinical questions, standing for Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome.
- **Population** — The specific group of patients or subjects being studied, such as adults after bowel surgery.
- **Intervention** — The treatment, exposure, or factor being tested, such as chewing gum.
- **Comparison** — The alternative or control condition against which the intervention is measured, such as no gum.
- **Outcome** — The measurable result used to judge effectiveness, such as time to first flatus.

## 같은 주제 문제

- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629756)
- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629757)
- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629758)
- [Situation: The adult medical ward of a tertiary hospital reviews its medication safety eve…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629759)
- [Situation: A 78-year-old woman is admitted to the adult medical ward with community-acquir…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629760)
- [Situation: A 78-year-old woman is admitted to the adult medical ward with community-acquir…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629761)
- [Situation: A 78-year-old woman is admitted to the adult medical ward with community-acquir…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629762)
- [Situation: The quality committee of a 200-bed hospital notes that the adult medical ward's…](https://mymerci.kr/pages/nclex_q.php?qn_id=629763)

---

More free questions: [기출문제](https://mymerci.kr/)

_학습 참고용입니다. 실제 임상은 최신 지침과 소속 기관 프로토콜을 따르세요._