Metodología de revisión sistemática en educación superior: Beneficios y desafíos
Abstract
La metodología sistemática en educación superior es un enfoque organizado y riguroso que guía la planificación, diseño, implementación y evaluación de procesos educativos, buscando optimizar la efectividad y eficiencia en ese contexto. Esta investigación se propuso analizar los beneficios y desafíos de esta metodología mediante un enfoque cualitativo y descriptivo. Se realizó una búsqueda exhaustiva de documentos pertinentes utilizando términos clave específicos y criterios de selección rigurosos. Los resultados enfatizan la importancia de definir con precisión el término “revisión sistemática” y diferenciarlo de las revisiones narrativas. Se subraya la relevancia de un enfoque metodológico riguroso, para garantizar la coherencia y calidad en la revisión, compuesto por nueve fases, desde la formulación de la pregunta hasta la comunicación de las conclusiones. Aunque las revisiones sistemáticas aportan beneficios significativos a la investigación y práctica educativa, se identifican desafíos como la necesidad de búsquedas exhaustivas y la gestión de la heterogeneidad de estudios. Se concluye destacando la importancia de la metodología sistemática en educación superior y haciendo énfasis en la necesidad de abordar los desafíos identificados para aprovechar su potencial tanto en investigación como en la toma de decisiones en este campo.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., y Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
Alharthi, A., Alassafi, M. O., Walters, R. J., y Wills, G. B. (2017). An exploratory study for investigating the critical success factors for cloud migration in the Saudi Arabian higher education context. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 664-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.10.008
Anderson, M. H., y Lemken, R. K. (2023). Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 77-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120969905
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., y Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Asatullaeva, Z., Aghdam, R. F. Z., Ahmad, N., y Tashpulatova, L. (2021). The impact of foreign aid on economic development: A systematic literature review and content analysis of the top 50 most influential papers. Journal of International Development, 33(4), 717-751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3543
Barnett-Page, E., y Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Bearman, M., Smith, C. D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Baik, C., Hughes-Warrington, M., y Neumann, D. L. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(5), 625-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.702735
Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
Buljac-Samardzic, M., Dekker-Van Doorn, C. M., Van Wijngaarden, J. D. H., y Van Wijk, K. P. (2010). Interventions to improve team effectiveness: A systematic review. Health Policy, 94(3), 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.09.015
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., Yardley, L., Pope, C., y Donovan, J. (2011). Evaluating meta-ethnography: Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment, 15(43). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15430
Casino, F., Dasaklis, T. K., y Patsakis, C. (2019). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36, 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006
Collins, J. A., y Fauser, B. C. J. M. (2005). Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update, 11(2), 103-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmh058
Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., Chandler, J., Welch, V. A., Higgins, J. P. T., y Thomas, J. (2019). Editorial. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10), ED000142. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142
Dixon‐Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., y Roberts, K. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: Opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x
Dolmas, J. (2017). Campbell and Cochrane meet Melino and Yang: Reverse engineering the surplus ratio in a Mehra–Prescott economy. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 40, 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2017.01.006
Frampton, G., Whaley, P., Bennett, M., Bilotta, G., Dorne, J.-L. C. M., Eales, J., James, K., Kohl, C., Land, M., Livoreil, B., Makowski, D., Muchiri, E., Petrokofsky, G., Randall, N., y Schofield, K. (2022). Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews. Environmental Evidence, 11(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-022-00264-0
French, S. D., Green, S. E., O’Connor, D. A., McKenzie, J. E., Francis, J. J., Michie, S., Buchbinder, R., Schattner, P., Spike, N., y Grimshaw, J. M. (2012). Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implementation Science, 7(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-38
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., y Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
Greenhalgh, T., Potts, H. W. W., Wong, G., Bark, P., y Swinglehurst, D. (2009). Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: A systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Quarterly, 87(4), 729-788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00578.x
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., y Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931
Haddaway, N. R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L. V., Koricheva, J., Macura, B., Petrokofsky, G., Pullin, A. S., Savilaakso, S., y Stewart, G. B. (2020). Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(12), 1582-1589. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x
Hajak, V. L., Sardana, S., Verdeli, H., y Grimm, S. (2021). A systematic review of factors affecting mental health and well-being of asylum seekers and refugees in Germany. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.643704
Hemsley‐Brown, J., y Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610669176
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., Woo, S. E., y Gulick, L. M. V. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., Peacock, R., y Murray, E. (2015). Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: Systematic reviews of reviews. Implementation Science, 11(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4
Loke, Y. K., Price, D., y Herxheimer, A. (2007). Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-32
Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., y Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., y Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., y Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
Paez, A. (2017). Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 10(3), 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12266
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(160). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., y Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Petkovic, J., Trawin, J., Dewidar, O., Yoganathan, M., Tugwell, P., y Welch, V. (2018). Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional methods study. Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6
Prill, R., Karlsson, J., Ayeni, O. R., y Becker, R. (2021). Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 29(9), 2739-2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06631-7
Reyes, A. D. (2023). ¿Revisiones sistemáticas en educación? Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Ve), XXIX(4), 509-520. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v29i4.41273
Schünemann, H. J., Vist, G. E., Higgins, J. P. T., Santesso, N., Deeks, J. J., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. A., y Guyatt, G. H. (2019). Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page y V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (pp. 403-431). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch15
Severin, A., y Chataway, J. (2021). Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336
Snilstveit, B., Oliver, S., y Vojtkova, M. (2012). Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 409-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.710641
Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., y Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(4), 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
Templier, M., y Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03706
Turner, R. M., Davey, J., Clarke, M. J., Thompson, S. G., y Higgins, J. P. T. (2012). Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(3), 818-827. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys041
Wang, X., Welch, V., Li, M., Yao, L., Littell, J., Li, H., Yang, N., Wang, J., Shamseer, L., Chen, Y., Yang, K., y Grimshaw, J. M. (2021). The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(1), e1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1134
Whittington, C. J., Kendall, T., Fonagy, P., Cottrell, D., Cotgrove, A., y Boddington, E. (2004). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. The Lancet, 363(9418), 1341-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16043-1
Wiek, A., e Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., y Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
Alharthi, A., Alassafi, M. O., Walters, R. J., y Wills, G. B. (2017). An exploratory study for investigating the critical success factors for cloud migration in the Saudi Arabian higher education context. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 664-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.10.008
Anderson, M. H., y Lemken, R. K. (2023). Citation context analysis as a method for conducting rigorous and impactful literature reviews. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 77-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120969905
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., y Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Asatullaeva, Z., Aghdam, R. F. Z., Ahmad, N., y Tashpulatova, L. (2021). The impact of foreign aid on economic development: A systematic literature review and content analysis of the top 50 most influential papers. Journal of International Development, 33(4), 717-751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3543
Barnett-Page, E., y Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Bearman, M., Smith, C. D., Carbone, A., Slade, S., Baik, C., Hughes-Warrington, M., y Neumann, D. L. (2012). Systematic review methodology in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(5), 625-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.702735
Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x
Buljac-Samardzic, M., Dekker-Van Doorn, C. M., Van Wijngaarden, J. D. H., y Van Wijk, K. P. (2010). Interventions to improve team effectiveness: A systematic review. Health Policy, 94(3), 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.09.015
Campbell, R., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Daker-White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., Yardley, L., Pope, C., y Donovan, J. (2011). Evaluating meta-ethnography: Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technology Assessment, 15(43). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15430
Casino, F., Dasaklis, T. K., y Patsakis, C. (2019). A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telematics and Informatics, 36, 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.006
Collins, J. A., y Fauser, B. C. J. M. (2005). Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update, 11(2), 103-104. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmh058
Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., Chandler, J., Welch, V. A., Higgins, J. P. T., y Thomas, J. (2019). Editorial. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: A new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10), ED000142. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142
Dixon‐Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., y Roberts, K. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: Opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x
Dolmas, J. (2017). Campbell and Cochrane meet Melino and Yang: Reverse engineering the surplus ratio in a Mehra–Prescott economy. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 40, 55-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2017.01.006
Frampton, G., Whaley, P., Bennett, M., Bilotta, G., Dorne, J.-L. C. M., Eales, J., James, K., Kohl, C., Land, M., Livoreil, B., Makowski, D., Muchiri, E., Petrokofsky, G., Randall, N., y Schofield, K. (2022). Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews. Environmental Evidence, 11(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-022-00264-0
French, S. D., Green, S. E., O’Connor, D. A., McKenzie, J. E., Francis, J. J., Michie, S., Buchbinder, R., Schattner, P., Spike, N., y Grimshaw, J. M. (2012). Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implementation Science, 7(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-38
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., y Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
Greenhalgh, T., Potts, H. W. W., Wong, G., Bark, P., y Swinglehurst, D. (2009). Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: A systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Quarterly, 87(4), 729-788. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00578.x
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., y Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931
Haddaway, N. R., Bethel, A., Dicks, L. V., Koricheva, J., Macura, B., Petrokofsky, G., Pullin, A. S., Savilaakso, S., y Stewart, G. B. (2020). Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(12), 1582-1589. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x
Hajak, V. L., Sardana, S., Verdeli, H., y Grimm, S. (2021). A systematic review of factors affecting mental health and well-being of asylum seekers and refugees in Germany. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.643704
Hemsley‐Brown, J., y Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550610669176
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(3), 485-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210
Köhler, T., González-Morales, M. G., Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Allen, J. A., Sinha, R., Woo, S. E., y Gulick, L. M. V. (2020). Supporting robust, rigorous, and reliable reviewing as the cornerstone of our profession: Introducing a competency framework for peer review. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.121
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., Peacock, R., y Murray, E. (2015). Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: Systematic reviews of reviews. Implementation Science, 11(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4
Loke, Y. K., Price, D., y Herxheimer, A. (2007). Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-32
Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., y Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.711342
Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., y Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., y Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
Paez, A. (2017). Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 10(3), 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12266
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(160). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., y Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119-2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Petkovic, J., Trawin, J., Dewidar, O., Yoganathan, M., Tugwell, P., y Welch, V. (2018). Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional methods study. Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0778-6
Prill, R., Karlsson, J., Ayeni, O. R., y Becker, R. (2021). Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 29(9), 2739-2744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06631-7
Reyes, A. D. (2023). ¿Revisiones sistemáticas en educación? Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Ve), XXIX(4), 509-520. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v29i4.41273
Schünemann, H. J., Vist, G. E., Higgins, J. P. T., Santesso, N., Deeks, J. J., Glasziou, P., Akl, E. A., y Guyatt, G. H. (2019). Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page y V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (pp. 403-431). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch15
Severin, A., y Chataway, J. (2021). Purposes of peer review: A qualitative study of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Learned Publishing, 34(2), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1336
Snilstveit, B., Oliver, S., y Vojtkova, M. (2012). Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 409-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2012.710641
Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., y Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(4), 290-298. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862
Templier, M., y Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03706
Turner, R. M., Davey, J., Clarke, M. J., Thompson, S. G., y Higgins, J. P. T. (2012). Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(3), 818-827. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys041
Wang, X., Welch, V., Li, M., Yao, L., Littell, J., Li, H., Yang, N., Wang, J., Shamseer, L., Chen, Y., Yang, K., y Grimshaw, J. M. (2021). The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(1), e1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1134
Whittington, C. J., Kendall, T., Fonagy, P., Cottrell, D., Cotgrove, A., y Boddington, E. (2004). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. The Lancet, 363(9418), 1341-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16043-1
Wiek, A., e Iwaniec, D. (2014). Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0208-6
Published
2024-09-13
How to Cite
Vélez-Mendoza, L. P., Cevallos-Sánchez, C.-S. H. A., Espinoza-Cuzco, A. E., & Cantos-Faubla, A. J. (2024). Metodología de revisión sistemática en educación superior: Beneficios y desafíos. Revista De Ciencias Sociales, 30(3), 381-394. https://doi.org/10.31876/rcs.v30i3.42668
Issue
Section
Artículos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
