ScholarGate
Asistent

Porovnat metody

Prohlédněte si vybrané metody vedle sebe; řádky, které se liší, jsou zvýrazněny.

Přehled×Přehled mapování×
OborScientometrieScientometrie
RodinaProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Rok vzniku2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
TvůrceRobin Whittemore & Kathleen KnaflBuckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
TypSystematic review methodSystematic evidence mapping methodology
Původní zdrojWhittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. DOI ↗James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7. DOI ↗
Další názvyintegrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesisevidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
Příbuzné66
ShrnutíAn 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.A mapping review (also called a systematic map or evidence map) is a form of systematic review that aims to chart the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than synthesize findings into a single pooled answer. It categorizes studies by key dimensions — such as intervention type, population, outcome, and study design — and presents the resulting landscape visually and tabularly so that researchers and practitioners can identify clusters of evidence, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future primary research or deeper synthesis.
ScholarGateDatová sada
  1. v1
  2. 2 Zdroje
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Zdroje
  3. PUBLISHED

Přejít na hledání Stáhnout prezentaci

ScholarGatePorovnat metody: Integrative Review · Mapping Review. Získáno 2026-06-20 z https://scholargate.app/cs/compare