Revisión sistemática en Educación Matemática: qué es y cómo hacerla
Palabras clave:
Síntesis de Evidencia, Revisión Sistemática, Educación Matemática, Metodología de InvestigaciónResumen
Este artículo presenta un estudio metodológico cuyo objetivo es sistematizar los principales procedimientos para la realización de una revisión sistemática de efectividad en el campo de la Educación Matemática. Considerando su papel esencial en la organización del conocimiento científico, especialmente en un contexto de rápida expansión, llevamos a cabo un análisis documental de directrices internacionales consolidadas, describiendo procedimientos fundamentales e identificando particularidades inherentes a la aplicación de este método en investigaciones en el ámbito de la Educación Matemática. Además de aumentar el poder estadístico de la investigación mediante la agregación de datos, este enfoque ayuda a aclarar inconsistencias entre estudios individuales, contribuyendo a la toma de decisiones basada en evidencias. Como resultado, elaboramos una guía sintética que pone de relieve matices metodológicos aún poco discutidos en la literatura del área. El artículo contribuye a cualificar la planificación y la ejecución de revisiones sistemáticas de efectividad por parte de investigadores en Educación Matemática, promoviendo un mayor rigor, transparencia y reproducibilidad.
Descargas
Referencias
Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (2024). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI.
Bhatt, A. (2010). Evolution of clinical research: A history before and beyond james lind. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 1(1), 6.
Blaizot, A., Veettil, S. K., Saidoun, P., Moreno-Garcia, C. F., Wiratunga, N., Aceves-Martins, M., & Laig, N. M. (2022). Using artificial intelligence methods for systematic review in health sciences: A systematic review. Research Synthesis Methods, 13(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1553
Boluyt, N., Tjosvold, L., Lefebvre, C., Klassen, T. P., & Offringa, M. (2008). Usefulness of systematic review search strategies in finding child health systematic reviews in MEDLINE. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 162(2), 111–116.
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001003
Clarke, M., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Reflections on the history of systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(4), 121–122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0833-3
Cummings, S. R., Hulley, S. B., & Browner, W. S. (2013). Conceiving the Research Question and Developing the Study Plan. Designing Clinical Research, 14–22.
Cumpston, M., Flemyng, E., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Deeks, J. J., & Clarke, M. . (2024). Chapter I: Introduction. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. Page, & V. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5.
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Elsevier. (26 de março de 2025). Resultados da busca para (TITLE-ABS-KEY (education) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (mathematics OR math OR mathematical)). Scopus. Disponível em https://www.scopus.com
Farace, D. J., & Frantzen, J. (1998). Perspectives on the Design and Transfer of Scientific and Technical Information. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Grey Literature.
Fiorentini, D., & Lorenzato, S. (2006). Investigação em Educação Matemática: percursos teóricos e metodológicos. Campinas, SP: Autores Associados.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x005010003
Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. . (2024). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5.
Lasserson, T. J., Thomas, J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2022). Chapter 1: Starting a review | Cochrane Training. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Featherstone, R., Littlewood, A., Metzen, M.-I., Noel-Storr, A., Paynter, R., Rader, T., Thomas, J., & Wielandorf, L. S. (2025). Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In V. A. Higgins, J. P. T. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, & L. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5.1.
Maia, M. G. B. (2023). Dario Fiorentini: reflexões pessoais e profissionais que influenciam a comunidade de professores e futuros professores que ensinam matemática. Educação Matemática em Revista, 28(78), 3–19.
McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., Ryan, R. E., Thomson, H. J., Johnston, R. V., & Thomas, J. (2019). Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 33–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch3
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet, 354, 1896–1900. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Goup. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 309(6954), 597–599. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597
O’Gorman, C. S., Macken, A. P., Cullen, W., Saunders, J., Dunne, C., & Higgins, M. F. (2013). What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? And why is a systematic review considered to be so good? Irish Medical Journal, 106(2 Suppl), 8–10
O’Rourke, K. (2007). An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100(12), 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.100.12.579
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(210). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
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. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pearson, K. (1904). Report on Certain Enteric Fever Inoculation Statistics. BMJ, 2(2288), 1243–1246. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.2288.1243
PICO Portal. (2025). PICO Portal. www.picoportal.org
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., Altman, D. G., Booth, A., Chan, A. W., Chang, S., Clifford, T., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Gøtzsche, P. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Groves, T., Helfand, M., … Whitlock, E. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Online), 349(January), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647.
Silva, J. F., Curi, E., & Schimiguel, J. (2017). Um cenário sobre a pesquisa em educação estatística no boletim de educação matemática -BOLEMA, de 2006 até 2015. Bolema - Mathematics Education Bulletin, 31(58), 679–698. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v31n58a08.
JBI SUMARI. (n.d.). JBI Resource Center. https://sumari.jbi.global/
The Campbell Collaboration. (2019). Campbell systematic reviews : policies and guidelines. In Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1 (Issue 1).
The Cochrane Collaboration. (2024). Review Manager (RevMan). revman.cochrane.org
Thomas, J., Kneale, D., McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., & Bhaumik, S. (2024). Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch2
Veritas Health Innovation. (2023). Covidence systematic review software. www.covidence.org
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
