Cited by 245Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and Education

Standards on how to develop and report systematic reviews in Psychology and Health

Open access
Perestelo-Pérez, Lilisbeth·2013·International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology

Abstract

Systematic reviews are secondary studies that summarize the best scientific evidence available by means of explicit and rigorous methods to identify, select, appraise, analyse and summarise the empirical studies that enable responding to specific questions. The aim of this theoretical study is to set out a series of standards and recommendations for the planning, development and reporting of a systematic review in the field of the health sciences. The article describes the systematic reviews in the context of practice based on scientific evidence, their rise, justification, applicability and differences compared to traditional literature reviews. Secondly, the methodology is set out for their development and guidelines are established for their preparation; the stages of the process and preparation of a protocol are described with emphasis on the steps to follow to prepare and report a systematic review. Finally, some additional considerations are set out for their preparation and publication in a scientific journal. This guide is aimed both at authors and reviewers of a systematic review. Las revisiones sistemáticas de la evidencia científica son estudios secundarios que sintetizan la mejor evidencia científica disponible mediante métodos explícitos y rigurosos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar, analizar y sintetizar los estudios empíricos que permitirán responder a cuestiones específicas. El objetivo de este estudio teórico es establecer una serie de normas y recomendaciones para la planificación, desarrollo y redacción de una revisión sistemática en el ámbito de las ciencias de la salud. La exposición del artículo se introduce situando las revisiones sistemáticas en el contexto de la práctica basada en las pruebas científicas, su auge, justificación, aplicabilidad y diferencias con las revisiones tradicionales de la literatura. En segundo lugar se expone la metodología para su desarrollo, estableciendo directrices para su preparación, elaboración y redacción; describiendo las etapas del proceso y elaboración de un protocolo, con énfasis en los pasos a seguir para elaborar una revisión sistemática. Finalmente se exponen algunas consideraciones adicionales para su redacción y publicación en una revista científica. Esta guía está dirigida tanto a los autores como revisores de una revisión sistemática de la evidencia científica.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1697-2600(13)70007-3

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Eligibility criteria for studies were presented with the greatest transparency and clarity in order to control selection bias.

    “Eligibility criteria for studies were presented with the greatest transparency and clarity in order to control selection bias [21].”

    From Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    Step 3 recommends specifying inclusion criteria in the protocol and applying them systematically when selecting studies; the protocol table also calls for defining eligibility criteria. Step 4 notes that study-selection methods can introduce bias, but the paper does not specifically say that presenting eligibility criteria transparently and clearly controls selection bias. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Inclusion criteria were established following the PICOS format.

    “The inclusion criteria were established following the PICOS (acronym for Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes and Study design) format [57]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Botella, J., & Gambara, H. (2006). Doing and reporting a meta- analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psycholo- gy, 6, 425-440.
  2. Chan, L., Dennett, L., Collins, S., & Topfer, L. A. (2006). Health technology assessment on the net: A guide to Internet sources of information (8 th ed.). Edmonton: Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research -AHFMR.
  3. Duque, B. (2010). Búsqueda eficiente de la evidencia científica. In B. Duque-González, L. García-Pérez, F. Hernández-Díaz, J. López- Bastida, V. Mahtani-Chugani, L. Perestelo-Pérez, Y. Ramalllo-Far- iña, M. Trujillo-Martín, & V. Yanes-López (Eds.), Introducción a la metodología de investigación en evaluación de tecnologías sani- tarias (pp. 33-57). Tenerife: Servicio Canario de la Salud.
  4. Fernández-Ríos, L., & Buela-Casal, G. (2009). Standards for the prepa- ration and writing of psychology review articles. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9, 329-344.
  5. García, L., & Yanes, V. (2010).Lectura crítica de artículos científicos. In B. Duque-González, L. García-Pérez, F. Hernández-Díaz, J. López- Bastida, V. Mahtani-Chugani, L. Perestelo-Pérez, Y. Ramalllo-Far- iña, M. Trujillo-Martín, & V. Yanes-López (Eds.), Introducción a la metodología de investigación en evaluación de tecnologías sani- tarias (pp. 59-75). Tenerife: Servicio Canario de la Salud.
  6. Hartley, J. (2012). New ways of making academic articles easier to read.International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12, 143-160.
  7. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.) (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.or [accessed 13 Sep 2012].
  8. Jarde, A., Losilla, J. M., & Vives, J. (2012). Suitability of three dif- ferent tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12, 97-108.
  9. Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming research stud- ies in Psychology. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 7, 847-862.
  10. Nezu, A. M., & Nezu, C. M. (2008). Evidence-based outcome re- search: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials. London: Oxford University Press.
  11. Wilczynski, N. L., McKibbon, K. A., & Haynes, R. B. (2011). Sensitive Clinical Queries retrieved relevant systematic reviews as well as primary studies: An analytic survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemi- ology, 64, 1341-1349.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perestelo-Pérez, L.
Venue
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-01
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
49-57
ISSN
1697-2600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990360810
Cited by
245
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
systematic reviews, reporting guidelines, evidence-based practice, research methodology standards, health sciences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review