Resumen
Una revisión de la literatura consiste en un análisis sistemático de estudios previos sobre un tema específico. Su propósito es sintetizar la evidencia existente, identificar vacíos de conocimiento y proporcionar un marco teórico que guíe investigaciones futuras, decisiones clínicas y la formulación de políticas. Sin embargo, la falta de estandarización en las metodologías dificulta la comparabilidad y replicabilidad de estos estudios. Aunque permiten integrar grandes volúmenes de evidencia y generar conclusiones sólidas, enfrentan desafíos como el sesgo en la selección de estudios y la ausencia de criterios claros para evaluar la calidad de la evidencia. Este diseño de investigación cobró relevancia con el auge de la práctica basada en la evidencia, especialmente en el ámbito de la salud y la investigación sanitaria. No obstante, la diversidad de enfoques y terminologías puede generar confusión. Este artículo pretende ofrecer una visión de diez tipos de revisión de la literatura, centrándose en sus características metodológicas, las preguntas que pueden abordar, sus fortalezas y debilidades y los tipos de análisis que se pueden realizar.
Citas
Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 1 de noviembre de 2019;104:333-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Sobrido Prieto M, Rumbo-Prieto JM. La revisión sistemática: pluralidad de enfoques y metodologías. Enferm Clínica. noviembre de
;28(6):387-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2018.08.008
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and
guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 10 de enero de 2018;18(1):5. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence
for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 25 de noviembre de
;14(1):83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development,
conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. septiembre de 2015;13(3):132-40. https://doi.
org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. junio de
;26(2):91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Samnani SS, Vaska M, Ahmed S, Turin TC. Review Typology: The Basic Types of Reviews for Synthesizing Evidence for the Purpose of
Knowledge Translation. J Coll Physicians Surg—Pak JCPSP. octubre de 2017;27(10):635-41.
Sánchez-Martín M, Plana MP, Gea AIP, Navarro-Mateu F. And, at first, it was the research question… The PICO, PECO, SPIDER and FINER
formats [Y, al principio, fue la pregunta de investigación … Los formatos PICO, PECO, SPIDER y FINER]. ESPIRAL Cuad Profr. 23 de marzo
de 2023;16(32):126-36. https://doi.org/10.25115/ecp.v16i32.9102
Somasundaran S. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in a nutshell. Kerala J Ophthalmol. diciembre de 2023;35(3):334. https://doi.
org/10.4103/kjo.kjo_134_23
Horsley T. Tips for Improving the Writing and Reporting Quality of Systematic, Scoping, and Narrative Reviews. J Contin Educ Health
Prof. 2019;39(1):54-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000241
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA statement. BMJ. 21 de julio de 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for
reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. marzo de 2021;18(3):e1003583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583
Ferrari R. Writing narrative style literature reviews. Med Writ. 1 de diciembre de 2015;24(4):230-5. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047480
Z.000000000329
Sukhera J. Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical. J Grad Med Educ. 11 de agosto de 2022;14(4):414-7. https://doi.
org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1
Paré G, Trudel MC, Jaana M, Kitsiou S. Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Inf Manage. 1 de
marzo de 2015;52(2):183-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008
Barry ES, Merkebu J, Varpio L. How to Conduct a State-of-the-Art Literature Review. J Grad Med Educ. 15 de diciembre de 2022;14(6):663-
https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00704.1
Maggio LA, Sewell JL, Artino AR. The Literature Review: A Foundation for High-Quality Medical Education Research. J Grad Med Educ.
julio de 2016;8(3):297-303. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-16-00175.1
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping
reviews. JBI Evid Synth. octubre de 2020;18(10):2119-26. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 9 de febrero de 2016;16:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and
Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2 de octubre de 2018;169(7):467-73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, Skidmore B, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review
and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 1 de enero de 2021;129:74-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
Flemming K, Noyes J. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at? Int J Qual Methods. 1 de enero de 2021;20:1609406921993276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993276
Booth A. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. En: Facey KM, Ploug Hansen H, Single ANV, editores. Patient Involvement in Health Technology
Assessment [Internet]. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2017 [citado 22 de mayo de 2025]. p. 187-99. Disponible en: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/978-981-10-4068-9_15
Flemming K, Booth A, Garside R, Tunçalp Ö, Noyes J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development:
clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob Health. enero de 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000882. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000882
Dixon-Woods M, Campbell A, Chang T, Martin G, Georgiadis A, Heney V, et al. A qualitative study of design stakeholders’ views of
developing and implementing a registry-based learning health system. Implement Sci. 6 de marzo de 2020;15(1):16. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s13012-020-0976-1
Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of «best fit» framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of
some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. diciembre de 2011;11(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-29
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 27 de noviembre de 2012;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
Kahlke R, Lee M, Eva KW. Critical Reviews in Health Professions Education Research. J Grad Med Educ. 17 de abril de 2023;15(2):180-5.
https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-23-00154.1
Varpio L, Ajjawi R, Monrouxe LV, O’Brien BC, Rees CE. Shedding the cobra effect: problematising thematic emergence, triangulation,
saturation and member checking. Med Educ. enero de 2017;51(1):40-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13124
Cook DA. Tips for a great review article: crossing methodological boundaries. Med Educ. 2016;50(4):384-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/
medu.12983
Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, Cogo E, MacDonald H, Lillie E, et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis
methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol. 1 de mayo de 2016;73:19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.
08.030
Depraetere J, Vandeviver ,Christophe, Keygnaert ,Ines, and Beken TV. The critical interpretive synthesis: an assessment of reporting
practices. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2 de noviembre de 2021;24(6):669-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1799637
Meade M, DiCiurcio W, Radack T, Michael M, Woods B. Reference Managers. Clin Spine Surg. 1 de marzo de 2024;37(2):77-8. https://doi.
org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001532
Aromataris E, Pearson A. The Systematic Review: An Overview. AJN Am J Nurs. marzo de 2014;114(3):53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 21 de julio de 2009;339:b2700.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editores. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Version 6.5 (updated August 2024). Cochrane; 2024.
Egger M, Higgins J, Smith GD, editores. Systematic reviews in health research: meta-analysis in context. Third edition. Hoboken Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell, BMJI Books; 2022. 1 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119099369
Kellermeyer L, Harnke B, Knight S. Covidence and Rayyan. J Med Libr Assoc JMLA. octubre de 2018;106(4):580-3. https://doi.org/10.5195/
jmla.2018.513
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. diciembre de
;5(1):210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2 de abril de 2018;71(2):103-12. https://
doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103
Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JP. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database
of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 24 de noviembre de 2011;11(1):160. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-160
Hansen C, Steinmetz H, Block J. How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide. Manag Rev Q. 1 de febrero de
;72(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00247-4
Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med. noviembre de 2022;1(1):e000071. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjmed-2021-000071
Choi GJ, Kang H. The umbrella review: a useful strategy in the rain of evidence. Korean J Pain. 1 de abril de 2022;35(2):127-8. https://
doi.org/10.3344/kjp.2022.35.2.127
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence
and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 24 de abril de 2008;336(7650):924-6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include
randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 21 de septiembre de 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmj.j4008