Сравнение на методи
Прегледайте избраните методи един до друг; редовете с разлики са откроени.
| Преглед тип „обхват“ (scoping review), съобразен с PRISMA× | Преглед на обхвата× | |
|---|---|---|
| Област | Наукометрия | Наукометрия |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Година на възникване≠ | 2018 (PRISMA-ScR extension); 2005 (scoping review framework) | 2005 |
| Създател≠ | Tricco et al. (PRISMA-ScR); Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review framework) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Тип≠ | Evidence synthesis — scoping review with standardized reporting | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Основополагащ източник≠ | Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Други названия | PRISMA-ScR scoping review, scoping review with PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA scoping review, transparent scoping review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Свързани | 6 | 6 |
| Резюме≠ | A PRISMA-compliant scoping review is a scoping review conducted and reported according to the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) extension, a 20-item checklist plus explanation published by Tricco et al. in 2018. Scoping reviews map the breadth and volume of evidence on a topic without synthesizing effect sizes; the PRISMA-ScR overlay adds transparency, reproducibility, and reporting completeness standards analogous to those PRISMA provides for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. | A scoping review is a systematic evidence-synthesis method that maps the breadth and nature of research on a topic — identifying key concepts, evidence types, and gaps — without necessarily appraising study quality or pooling effect sizes. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by Levac and colleagues (2010), it is particularly valuable for emerging or heterogeneous fields where a full systematic review would be premature or infeasible. |
| ScholarGateНабор от данни ↗ |
|
|