Abstract:

Background:
The Bologna Declaration of 1999 established a system of qualifications, whose first level is the degree studies, which consist of between 180-240 ECTS credits (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) and whose curricula must contain the Final Project of Degree (FPD).
The FPD can follow different methodology: professional projects, research projects, literature reviews and other. In the development of the TFG we must have a certain knowledge about conducting literature search. Conducting literature reviews is a good choice for undergraduates in our university, allowing undergraduates to approach the best scientific evidence available.
Currently, to encourage and assist in the correct elaboration and development of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health sciences, there are some guidelines that include a checklist. The first of these guidelines was developed by the statement Quality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses (QUORUM), and as a result of updating and expanding arises the statement Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The PRISMA statement is a tool to contribute to the clarity and transparency in the publication of systematic reviews.
Therefore, it was considered of interest train undergraduates, who develop literature reviews as the object of their FPDs, on the usefulness of PRISMA, even considering that not always go on to develop systematic reviews or meta-analysis. And also, to know whether the implementation of PRISMA facilitated them performing their review of the literature.

Objective:
This study present an implantation project of training for undergraduates in knowledge of PRISMA as facilitator element for the correct development of FPDs based in conducting a literature review.

Method:
Quanti-qualitative pilot study of a sample of 3 participants who were trained to follow the recommendations provided by PRISMA in all items comprising the checklist included in it, except for those items focused on systematic reviews and meta-analyses strictly. Also, one participant who had not received training on methodological guidelines was included.
Subsequently, using a specifically designed questionnaire, the degree of knowledge and satisfaction of students who had developed their FPDs following the recommendations of PRISMA and the grade to which this instrument had facilitated them the realization of their FPDs were assessed.

Results:
The participants, who were trained in PRISMA during the pilot study, reported that thanks to the training received they had known the existence of methodological guidelines. In addition, this training facilitated the development of their literature review studies in 100% of participants. However, the participant who did not receive any training and unaware this guidelines considered that it would be interesting to know PRISMA.

Conclusions:
Providing knowledge to undergraduates about the existence of guidelines such as PRISMA, that include checklists, for developing their FPDs of literature review could facilitate the task of developing them. It is necessary to discard those items that belong to these lists and are exclusively dedicated to systematic reviews and meta-analyses strictly.

Keywords:

FPD, Health Sciences, literature review, meta-analyses, methodology guideline, PRISMA statement, systematic review.