Revisão da Literatura com apoio de ferramentas digitais: avanços e desafios




Literature review, Qualitative research, Digital tools, webQDA


Framework: Literature Review is an important step in any research project. Knowing how to review in a digital environment can enhance collaboration between researchers and thus obtain more relevant results. Goals: To present a Literature Review made in a digital environment; report the sequential steps of this trajectory; reflect on the use of webQDA for qualitative analysis of Literature Review. Chapter organization: The chapter starts with a brief introduction on the subject, followed by the Literature Review presentation session with the support of a digital tool. This session will cover the main steps of a review and how they apply to webQDA. In addition, an example of bibliometric analysis is presented. At the end, there is a reflection on the development of Literature Review with the support of digital tools, highlighting the main potentialities of using this technology to produce qualitative syntheses. Final considerations: Digital tools emerge as an important support to researchers for the elaboration of Literature Review, especially in the stages of selection, treatment, and synthesis of studies. These tools also favour the optimization of data organization, the transparency of the methodological path and the credibility of scientific evidence.


Costa, A. B., Zoltowski, A. P. C., Koller, S. H., & Teixeira, M. A. P. (2015). Construction of a scale to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 20, 2441-2452.

Costa, A. P., & Amado, J. (2018). Análise de Conteúdo Suportada por Software. Aveiro: Ludomedia.

Costa, A. P., Soares, C. B., Fornari, L. & Pinho, I. (2019). Revisão da Literatura com Apoio de Software - Contribuição da Pesquisa Qualitativa. Aveiro: Ludomedia.

Dijkers, M. P. J. M. (2009). The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 88(5), 423-430. DOI: 10.1097/phm.0b013e31819c59c6

Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Sutton, A. J., Shaw, R. L., Smith, J. A., & Young, B. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27-44.

Dixon-Woods, M., Fitzpatrick, R., & Roberts, K. (2001). Including qualitative research in systematic reviews: opportunities and problems. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 125-133. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00257.x.

Fornari, L. F., & Pinho, I. (2019). Ferramentas digitais para revisão da literatura Revisão da Literatura com Apoio de Software: Contribuição da Pesquisa Qualitativa (pp. 15–20). Oliveira de Azemeis: Ludomedia.

Fornari, L. F., Pinho, I., de Almeida, C. A., & Costa, A. P. (2019). Systematic Literature Review with Support of Digital Tools 9th IEEE Symposium on Computer Applications & Industrial Electronics (ISCAIE 2019) Kota Kinabalu, Malásia.

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

Hart, C. (2006). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. London: SAGE.

Moresi, E. A. D., & Pinho, I. (2021). Proposta de abordagem para refinamento de pesquisa bibliográfica. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 9, 11-20.

Moresi, E. A. D., Pinho, I., Hartmann, V. C., de Oliveira Braga Filho, M., Pinho, C., & Costa, A. P. (2021). Learning Assessment: Mapping Research and Educational Policy Agendas (pp. 31-44). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Moresi, E. A. D., Pinho, I., Hartmann, V. C., Filho, M. d. O. B., Pinho, C., & Costa, A. P. (2020). Avaliação das Aprendizagens: um estudo bibliométrico. In: S. O. Sá, F. Freitas, P. Castro, M. G. Sanmamed & A. P. Costa (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Education: advances and challenges (Vol. 2, pp. 42-54). Aveiro: Ludomedia.

Murphy, P. K., Knight, S. L., & Dowd, A. C. (2017). Familiar Paths and New Directions: Inaugural Call for Manuscripts. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 3-6.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1).

Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 1-5.

Parums, D. V. (2021). Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines. Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 27, e934475-e934475. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.934475

Pedrosa, J., Leite, C., Rosa, M. J., & Pinho, I. (2019). Avaliação das Aprendizagens em Portugal: Um olhar transversal sobre os fundamentos teóricos, as políticas educativas e as práticas. IX Simpósio de Organização e Gestão Escolar: (Re)pensar a qualidade das organizações educativas: olhares sobre a educação básica, secundária e superior, Aveiro, Portugal, 07/11 - 08/11.

Perkel, J. M. (2020). The Collaborative Reference Library. Nature, 585(7823), 149-150.

Pinho, I., & Diogo, S. (2018). Enhancing the Visibility and Impact of Scholarly Research: an exploratory study on knowledge production settings. Revista Meta: Avaliação, 10(30), 502.

Pinho, I., & Leite, D. (2014). Doing a literature review using content analysis - Research Networks Review. Poster CIAIQ 2014 - Congresso Ibero-Americano em Investigação Qualitativa, Badajoz, Espanha, 4 - 16 de Julho.

Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R., & Dell, N. A. (2016). Overviews in Education Research: A Systematic Review and Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172-203.

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747-770. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.

Soares, C. (2019). Revisão qualitativa da literatura com enfoque na revisão sistemática Revisão da Literatura com Apoio de Software: Contribuição da Pesquisa Qualitativa (pp. 3–15). Aveiro: Ludomedia.

Soilemezi, D., & Linceviciute, S. (2018). Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Reflections and Lessons Learnt by Two New Reviewers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1).

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222.

Woods, M., Macklin, R., & Lewis, G. K. (2016). Researcher reflexivity: exploring the impacts of CAQDAS use. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(4), 385–403.

Zoltowski, A. P. C., Costa, A. B., Teixeira, M. A. P., & Koller, S. H. (2014). Methodological quality of systematic reviews in brazilian psychology journals quality of systematic reviews in psychology. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 30(1), 97–104.



How to Cite

Fornari, L. F., & Pinho, I. (2022). Revisão da Literatura com apoio de ferramentas digitais: avanços e desafios. New Trends in Qualitative Research, 10, e512.