Сравнение на методи

	Интегративен преглед	ЧаДър преглед
Област	Наукометрия	Синтез на доказателства
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Година на възникване	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	2009
Създател	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)
Тип	Systematic review method	Framework
Основополагащ източник	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
Други названия	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews
Свързани	6	2
Резюме	An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.	An umbrella review is a systematic synthesis of multiple systematic reviews addressing overlapping or related research questions, typically on the same topic or intervention. Also called a 'review of reviews' or 'overview of reviews,' umbrella reviews consolidate evidence when two or more high-quality systematic reviews exist on the same clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) formally categorized this methodology; Shea et al. (2017) developed AMSTAR-2, the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of included reviews. Umbrella reviews are essential when numerous systematic reviews produce conflicting conclusions, when rapid synthesis of evidence is needed for policy or clinical guidance, or when evidence has accumulated faster than any single systematic review can capture.