Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: II. Cómo identificar los estudios relevantes

Translated title of the contribution: Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature

K. S. Khan, A. Bueno-Cavanillas*, J. Zamora

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalShort surveypeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
43 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article focuses on the second step of a systematic review, i.e. how to identify relevant studies for the planned review. The search, using terms related to the questions framed in the previous step, should be comprehensive. However, it is important to establish selection criteria to include relevant studies and to exclude those that might present a risk of bias at this stage. Details such as broadening the spectrum of electronic databases consulted, avoiding restricting searches to a single language, managing references correctly, and recording decisions made throughout the process are winning factors for successful study identification.

Translated title of the contributionSystematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature
Original languageSpanish
Pages (from-to)431-436
Number of pages6
JournalMedicina de Familia - SEMERGEN
Volume48
Issue number6
Early online date3 May 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Agradecemos a Daniel Gavilán Cabello su colaboración en la traducción de este artículo. Khalid S. Khan está contratado por la Universidad de Granada como investigador distinguido gracias a una ayuda del programa Beatriz Galindo del Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, España.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN)

Keywords

  • Databases
  • Exclusion criteria
  • Inclusion criteria
  • Literature search
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Family Practice

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this