Standards on how to develop and report systematic reviews in Psychology and Health
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 measuredInclusion 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]”
From Well-Being and Romantic Relationships: A Systematic Review in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood (2019) · cites this paper as [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
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648 · see citing works
Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach
Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04328.x · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Botella, J., & Gambara, H. (2006). Doing and reporting a meta- analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psycholo- gy, 6, 425-440.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Hartley, J. (2012). New ways of making academic articles easier to read.International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12, 143-160.
- 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].
- 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.
- 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.
- Nezu, A. M., & Nezu, C. M. (2008). Evidence-based outcome re- search: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials. London: Oxford University Press.
- 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
Burnout syndrome in secondary school teachers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
García-Carmona, M., Marín, M. D., & Aguayo, R. (2019) · Social Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s11218-018-9471-9 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Well-Being and Romantic Relationships: A Systematic Review in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood
Gómez-López, M., Viejo, C., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16132415 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Quality of Life in Caregivers of Cancer Patients: A Literature Review
Guerra-Martín, M. D., Casado-Espinosa, M. D. R., Gavira-López, Y., Holgado-Castro, C., López-Latorre, I., & Borrallo-Riego, Á. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20021570 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Sleep in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Díaz-Román, A., Perestelo-Pérez, L., & Buela-Casal, G. (2015) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2015.03.020 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Espinosa, M. D. A., & Del Río Olvera, F. J. (2024) · Revista de Psicoterapia · doi:10.5944/rdp.v35i128.40923
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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