Guide to Literature Reviews for Final Degree Projects

Authors

Miguel López Zamora
Universidad de Málaga
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3466-4465
Irene López Torres
Universidad de Málaga
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5423-9502
Francisco López Méndez
UCAM Universidad Católica de Murcia
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0896-2016
Nadia Porcar-Gozalbo
Universidad Internacional de Valencia
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6045-7033
Alejandro Cano–Villagrasa
Universidad Internacional de Valencia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7330-8987

Keywords:

Revisión bibliográfica, PRISMA, PICO, Trabajo fin de grado / máster, Revisión sistemática

Synopsis

This manual aims to provide a practical, clear, and accessible guide for the preparation of literature reviews and, in particular, systematic and narrative reviews within the university academic context. Given the growing relevance of this type of study, driven by the rapid increase in scientific output, it is essential that students are able to critically evaluate the available evidence on any topic in order to support academic and professional decision-making. The text guides students step by step from the formulation of the research question to the final presentation of the work, integrating widely accepted methodological tools such as the PICO framework and the PRISMA protocol, which are essential to ensure transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in the search, selection, and analysis of studies.

Throughout the content, the different types of existing reviews are explained, along with their applications and levels of complexity, highlighting their advantages, challenges, and the criteria for selecting the most appropriate type. In addition, fundamental aspects such as time management, article selection and screening, the use of scientific databases, methodological quality assessment, risk of bias, and results interpretation are addressed. The manual also includes recommendations regarding scientific impact, open access, and precautions against grey literature and predatory journals.

Its didactic, straightforward, and practice-oriented approach aims to facilitate understanding and motivate students, offering a useful tool for developing research skills and producing solid, well-structured, and coherent undergraduate or master’s final projects.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aguayo-Albasini, J. L., Flores-Pastor, B., & Soria-Aledo, V. (2014). Sistema GRADE: Clasificación de la calidad de la evidencia y graduación de la fuerza de la recomendación. Cirugía Española, 92(2), 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2013.08.002

Beall, J. (s. f.). Beall’s List of Potential Predatory Journals and Publishers. https://beallslist.net/

Borah, R., Brown, A. W., Capers, P. L., & Kaiser, K. A. (2017). Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 7(2), e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545

Brouwers, M. C., Kho, M. E., Browman, G. P., Burgers, J. S., Cluzeau, F., Feder, G., Fervers, B., Graham, I. D., Grimshaw, J., Hanna, S. E., Littlejohns, P., Makarski, J., Zitzelsberger, L., & for the AGREE Next Steps Consortium. (2010). AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 182(18), E839-E842. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.090449

Clarivate Analytics. (s. f.). Web of Science. https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/

Cochrane, A. L. (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: Random reflections on health services.

Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER Tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938

Cressey, D. (2017). Tool for detecting publication bias goes under spotlight. Nature, nature.2017.21728. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.21728

Directory of Open Access. (s. f.). DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals. https://doaj.org/

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. bmj, 315(7109), 629-634.

Escrig Sos, V. J., Llueca Abella, J. A., Granel Villach, L., & Bellver Oliver, M. (2021). Metaanálisis: Una forma básica de entender e interpretar su evidencia. Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria, 34(1), 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.senol.2020.05.007

Feak, C. B., & Swales, J. (2009). Abstracts and the writing of abstracts (J. Swales, Ed.; Rev., and expanded ed). University of Michigan Press.

Gagnier, J. J., Kienle, G., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Sox, H., Riley, D., & the CARE Group. (2013). The CARE guidelines: Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Reports, bcr2013201554. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2013-201554

García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2022). Los métodos de revisión sistemática de literatura. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.6320298

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies: A typology of reviews, Maria J. Grant & Andrew Booth. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

Heidari, S., Babor, T. F., De Castro, P., Tort, S., & Curno, M. (2019). Equidad según sexo y de género en la investigación: Justificación de las guías SAGER y recomendaciones para su uso. Gaceta Sanitaria, 33(2), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.04.003

Higgins, J. P. T., & Cochrane Collaboration (Eds.). (2020). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Second edition). Wiley-Blackwell.

Higgins, J. P. T., López-López, J. A., Becker, B. J., Davies, S. R., Dawson, S., Grimshaw, J. M., McGuinness, L. A., Moore, T. H. M., Rehfuess, E. A., Thomas, J., & Caldwell, D. M. (2019). Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Global Health, 4(Suppl 1), e000858. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858

Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials, 17(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4

Landa, A. H., Szabo, I., Brun, L. L., Owen, I., & Fletcher, G. (2011). An Evidence-Based Approach to Scoping Reviews. 14(1).

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1-e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

López-Zamora, M. (2021). El trabajo final universitario. Editorial Aula Magna, 2020. McGraw-Hill Interamericana de España.

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., 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., … Moher, D. (2021a). Declaración PRISMA 2020: Una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Revista Española de Cardiología, 74(9), 790-799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., 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., … Moher, D. (2021b). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (1.a ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

QUOROM Group, Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (2002). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. British Journal of Surgery, 87(11), 1448-1454. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x

SCImago. (s. f.). SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). https://www.scimagojr.com/

Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., & Chipponi, J. (2003). Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): Development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ journal of surgery, 73(9), 712-716.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1996). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. College Composition and Communication, 47(3), 443. https://doi.org/10.2307/358319

Turner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Weeks, L., Peters, J., Kober, T., Dias, S., Schulz, K. F., Plint, A. C., & Moher, D. (2012). Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2

Urrútia, G., & Bonfill, X. (2010). Declaración PRISMA: Una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Medicina Clínica, 135(11), 507-511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015

Downloads

Published

January 7, 2026

Details about this monograph

ISBN-13 (15)

978-84-1335-462-0