Porovnat metody

	Přehled mapování	Přehledový článek
Obor	Scientometrie	Scientometrie
Rodina	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Rok vzniku	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
Tvůrce	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
Typ	Systematic evidence mapping methodology	Literature review methodology
Původní zdroj	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.	Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117.
Další názvy	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
Příbuzné	6	6
Shrnutí	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.	A narrative review is a broad, author-directed synthesis of published literature on a topic, written to summarize, interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge without following the rigorous, pre-registered search and selection protocols that characterize systematic reviews. It draws on the author's expertise to weave disparate sources into a coherent account that identifies themes, debates, and directions for future research.