AimThis systematic review identified systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative empirical studies on the promotion and development of critical thinking in higher education students that allowed us to answer the following research questions: (1) What are the main definitions of critical thinking found in systematic reviews of critical thinking in higher education, and what are their similarities and differences? and (2) What are the most commonly used teaching strategies in higher education for teaching or promoting critical thinking, and how effective have they proven to be?MethodsSystematic reviews were selected according to the guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes (PRISMA, 2020) and the eligibility criteria proposed by the PICOS strategy (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design), based on 23 records of scientifically identified registers in the Journal Citation Report databases of the Web of Science.ResultsThe bibliometric and systematic search of reviews of empirical studies on the topic allowed the selection of five systematic reviews. The results highlighted that conceptually critical thinking is related to both dispositions and skills, and that although there is no consensus on its definition, it is established that it is a higher-order cognitive process that can be trained. However, the results show that more studies have been conducted considering critical thinking as a skill than as a disposition, that the immersion approach has been widely used, and that some instructional strategies have shown greater effectiveness than others when the disciplines are evaluated independently.DiscussionDespite the relative consensus on the importance of critical thinking for professional development in higher education, this review highlights some difficulties in conceptualizing critical thinking, in the relationship between dispositions and skills, and in its assessment in academic disciplines.

(1) Background: This systematic review supported by a bibliometric analysis identified quantitative and qualitative empirical studies that allowed us to respond to the objective of identifying and discussing the scope and limitations of the clinical-psychotherapeutic supervision in virtual modality or telesupervision. (2) Methods: The articles were selected according to the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the eligibility criteria proposed by the PICOS strategy (population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) based on 396 records of scientifically identified articles in the Journal Citation Report databases of the Web of Science. (3) Results: The literature review stages allowed the selection of three articles, which were added three others that were already included in a previous review, to enrich the analysis and discussion. The results of the present review highlighted aspects of nonverbal communication, alliance, comfort, preference, trust, and construction of professional identity, among others, both considering only the telesupervision format and comparing it with traditional face-to-face supervision. (4) Conclusions: The contributions that these results are providing to the understanding of the scope and limitations of the practice of telesupervision are discussed, also considering its interference in the construction of the professional identity of supervisors and supervisees.