I. Introducction

Regarding the methodology to be followed, scientific literature reviews (SLR) have been applied in various ways. Therefore, carrying out a systematic review (SR) is considered suitable (the relevance of carrying out a thorough literature review is supported by MoncadaHernández, 2014, while a detailed classification of the various types of literature review can be found in Grant and Booth, 2009). Gough, Oliver, and Thomas (2017) state that traditional scientific literature reviews (SLR) have been characterized by their critical presentation of findings from a range set of research studies, but without taking into account specific criteria to determine the studies to be included in or excluded from the review (inclusion and exclusion criteria). In terms of structure, systematic reviews (SR) can be classified into those seeking to determine what has been researched within a specific field of study, those aimed at synthesizing the information of the research studies identified, and those seeking to review previous reviews (Gough and Thomas, 2017; Gough, Oliver, and Thomas, 2017). It is recommended to take into account the following steps when conducting a SLR:

- Design the search strategy

- Identify and select relevant literature

- Store and record search results

- Model and organize selected references -

Analyze and interpret the results of selected papers A systematic review (SR) is understood as a type of research that uses the existing scientific literature on a specific topic as its data source, and its objectives are to identify, evaluate, describe, and, in many cases, synthesize—through methods which are strictly specified and impartially applied—the findings of the studies presented in the literature under review (Letelier, Manríquez, and Rada, 2005; Sampaio and Mancini, 2007; Ferreira, Urrutia and Alonso, 2011; Rodríguez, Zafra, Quintero, 2015; Moreno, Muñoz, Cuellar, Domancic and Villanueva, 2018). A systematic review (SR) is a type of research in which a clearly defined question is posed and to respond to it, a comprehensive search of empirical studies that attempted to answer such question is carried out. Relevant studies are selected, key information is extracted, and results are synthesized (Sánchez-Meca, 2022). Through the cumulative synthesis of study results, a response is reached to the initial question (Cooper, 2016; Petticrew and Roberts, 2006).

In relation to systematic reviews (SR), an analysis of previous studies published in a specific area, field, or research line is conducted. Systematic reviews (SR) can be carried out under two study modalities (qualitative or quantitative, also known as meta-analysis): (a) Qualitative SR, which systematizes previous theories and empirical findings and present them in a study organizing such information into categories that describe the phenomenon, similar to a literature review; and (b) Quantitative SR, which systematizes published research studies, selecting information relevant to the research and which enables the descriptive statistical analysis to identify the current status of a field or research line.

Meta-analysis (MA) is a type of research similar to quantitative systematic review, considered as research designs. While quantitative systematic reviews (SR) have an exploratory descriptive scope, meta-analysis (MA) seeks to reach an explanatory level. Consequently, in the first type of research, descriptive analyses, such as measures of central tendency or dispersion, are conducted to provide a characterization of the study, rather than an explanation of the phenomenon. For meta-analysis, hypotheses are the starting point rather than description, involving those at correlational, predictive, experimental, or causeexperimental levels. In Educational Sciences the most frequent MA is related to the efficiency of programs, interventions, treatments, techniques, etc. to solve, improve, or prevent any issues associated with education (Sánchez-Meca, 2022). Another special type of MA is that one focused on analyzing psychometric properties of tests and scales commonly used in educational contexts (Schmidt and Hunter, 2015). Psychometric meta- analyses consist of the synthesis of validity coefficients (validity generalization MA) or reliability coefficients (reliability generalization MA) obtained when applying a specific test to various samples of participants in the studies (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2020; Sánchez- Meca et al., 2013; Sánchez-Meca and López-Pina, 2008).

Regarding the methodology to carry out this type of studies, it has been possible to structure and standardize an approach. The best-known and implemented model is the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins et al., 2019), and there are also guidelines with recommendations for the presentation of this type of reviews (including meta-analyses) such as Quality of Reports of Metaanalyses (QUORUM) (Moraga and Cartes Velásquez, 2015), or Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses (PRISMA) (González, Buñuel, and Aparicio, 2011), as well as instruments for critically evaluating systematic reviews such as A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) (Ciapponi, 2018), etc.

 

II. Recommendations for authors

La clave para desarrollar un proyecto de revisión sistemática exitoso reside en la habilidad para plantear, de forma precisa, los problemas que se abordan en la revisión, formulando una pregunta bien estructurada (Khan, Kunz y kleijnen, 2011). Para las RS cuantitativas y metaanálisis, se propone tener en cuenta, en su desarrollo y procedimiento, las siguientes recomendaciones: a) partir del planteamiento de una problemática de investigación, b) formular las preguntas de investigación, c) definir palabras claves, d) precisar los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, e) llevar a cabo la búsqueda de información en bases de datos científicas, f) realizar un análisis y diferenciación de las investigaciones recolectadas, g) elaborar el diagrama de flujo de la investigación, h) construir la tabla de extracción de información, i) realizar el análisis estadístico de los datos y j) desarrollar la discusión de la investigación.

 

For item (a) a theoretical review of the topics to be studied must be conducted previously based on original sources, particularly research papers developed, at least, in the past five years.

For item (b), the greater the researcher’s expertise with the phenomenon under study, the more clearly the research questions emerge. These questions guide the systematic review process, supporting database searches, organizing the information extraction table, preparing the study flowchart, and conducting subsequent statistical analyses.

For item (c), relevant words must be defined related to the various variables and concepts of the study. These will guide the review of each paper included in the study. They may derive from the title or abstract.

For item (d), inclusion and exclusion criteria for previous scientific or research papers are defined. They must be defined at the beginning in order to select the papers to be considered in the SR.

For item (e), database search and consultation is carried out using key words. For a more effective search, chronological, geographic, area and other delimiters must be used, which are provided within the databases. Some databases are Scopus, SciELO, Redalyc, Clarivate, etc.

For item (f), data from papers related to the study shall be selected and discriminated. The most relevant papers shall be identified and selected (based on inclusion and exclusion criteria) after a thorough and detailed review of papers.

For item (g) , prepare a flowchart, including each phase (as indicated in the previous item). This will help identify the various moments that were followed for the collection, discrimination, and analysis of the information.

For item (h), an information extraction table is prepared to classify the most important data for the analysis. The items to be analyzed shall be defined based on the research and the aim of each study. These data may be qualitative or quantitative.

For item (i), quantitative SR involves conducting descriptive statistical analyses, such as measures of dispersion and central tendency. The most common statistic variables in this type of research are frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. The database must be constructed and the type of variables identified to subsequently answer the research questions through statistical analyses.

For item (j), in the discussion section of SR, the achievements and the aspects that were not accomplished in the research must be reported. Likewise, the benefits and contributions of the research must be informed as well as its impact on the field, area or state of the research line. It is also important to compare the findings with the empirical and theoretical background reported earlier. Finally, the limitations and difficulties encountered should be included along with suggestions for future research.

 

References

Badenes-Ribera, L., Rubio-Aparicio, M. and Sánchez-Meca, J. (2020). Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis. Información Psicológica, 119, 17-32. https://doi.org/dx.medra.org/10.14635/IPSIC.2020.119.6

Benet-Rodríguez. M., Zafra-Tristancho S.L. & Quintero Ortega S.P. (2015). The systematic review of the scientific literature and the need to visualize the results of the investigations, Revista Logos, Ciencia & Tecnología, 7(1), 101-103. https://doi.org/10.22335/rlct.v7i1.232

Ciapponi, A. (2018). AMSTAR-2: Herramienta de evaluación crítica de revisiones sistemáticas de estudios de intervenciones de salud. Evidencia, Actualización en la Práctica Ambulatoria, 21(1), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.51987/evidencia.v21i1.6834

Cooper, H. (2016). Research synthesis: A step-by-step approach (5th Ed.). Sage.

Ferreira, I., Urrutia, G. and Alonso-Coello, P. (2011). “Systematic reviews and meta- analysis: scientific rationale and interpretation.” Revista Española de Cardiología, 64(8), 688-696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2011.03.029

Gough, D., Oliver, S. & Thomas, J. (2017). “Introducing systematic reviews.” In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Comp.), An introduction to Systematic Reviews (pp. 1-18). Sage.

Gough, D. & Thomas, J. (2017). “Commonality and diversity in reviews.” In D. Gough, S. Oliver & J. Thomas (Comp.), An introduction to Systematic Reviews (pp. 43-70). Sage.

Grant, M. & Booth, A. (2009). “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies,” Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91- 108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009. 00848.x

Higgins, J., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M., and Welch, V. (Eds.) (2019). Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons.

González, J., Buñuel, J. C., and Aparicio, M. (2011). Listas guía de comprobación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA. Evidencias en Pediatría, 7(4), 97. https://evidenciasenpediatria.es/files/4111457-RUTA/97Fundamentos.pdf .

Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. (2011). Systematic Reviews to Support Evidence- Based Medicine. 2nd ed CRC Press.

Letelier, L. M., Manríquez, J. J. and Rada. G. (2005). Systematic reviews and metaanalysis: are the best evidence? Revista Médica Chilena, 133, 246-249. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S003498872005000200015&script=sci_arttext

Moncada-Hernández, S. (2014). How to conduct an effective search for information. Focus in students, teachers and researchers in education. Investigación en educación médica, 3(10), 106-115. Retrieved from https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/iem/v3n10/v3n10a7.pdf

Moraga, J., and Cartes-Velásquez, R. (2015). Checklists, part II: Quorum y Prisma. Revista Chilena de Cirugía, 67(3), 325-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S071840262015000300015

Moreno, B., Muñoz, M., Cuellar, J., Domancic, S. and Villanueva, J. (2018). “Systematic Reviews: definition and basic notions,” Revista clínica de periodoncia, implantología y rehabilitación oral, 11(3), 184-186. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719- 01072018000300184

Petticrew, M. and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell. Sánchez-Meca, J. (2022). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Education: A tutorial. RiiTE Revista interuniversitaria de investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 13, 5- 40. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.545451

Sánchez-Meca, J., López-López, J.A. and López-Pina, J.A. (2013). Some recommended Statistical analytic practices when reliability generalization (RG) studies are conducted. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 402-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02057.x

Sampaio, R. F. and Mancini, M. C. (2007). “Systematic review studies: a guide for careful synthesis of scientific evidence.” Revista Brasileña de Fisioterapia, 11(1), 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552007000100013

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research synthesis (3rd. Ed.). Sage.

The following Bibliography is recommended for additional information

Aguilera-Eguía, R.A., Fuentes-Barría H., Yáñez-Baeza, C., Pérez-Galdavini V., Inostroza- Reyes G., & Roco-Videla Á. (2022). Diferencias metodológicas entre una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis y una revisión sistemática con metaanálisis en red. Nutrición Hospitalaria, 39 (5), 1192-1193. https://dx.doi.org/10.20960/nh.04170

Betancourt Arango, J. P., Suárez Millán, M. C. & Álvarez Márquez, D. Y. (2022). Revisión sistemática de literatura sobre la relación entre la teoría y la práctica en estudiantes de biología y química de Colombia. Revista Luna Azul,54, 114-142. https://doi.org/10.17151/luaz.2022.54.7

Ramos-Galarza C. & García-Cruz P. (2024). Guidelines for conducting quantitative systematic review studies. CienciAmérica, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.33210/ca.v13i1.444

Reyes, A. D. (2023). Systematic reviews in education? Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 29(4), 509-520. https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/rcs/article/view/41273/47551

Villasís-Keever M.A., Rendón-Macías M.E., García H., Miranda-Novales M.G. & Escamilla-Núñez A. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis as a support tool for research and clinical practice. Rev Alerg Mex, 67(1):62-72. https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/ram/v67n1/2448-9190-ram-67-01-62.pdf