Sammenlign metoder
Gennemgå dine valgte metoder side om side; rækker, der afviger, er fremhævet.
| Protokolbaseret metaanalyse× | Scoping Review× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagområde | Scientometri | Scientometri |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Oprindelsesår≠ | 1990s–2015 (Cochrane established 1993; PROSPERO launched 2011; PRISMA-P 2015) | 2005 |
| Ophavsperson≠ | Cochrane Collaboration; formalized through PROSPERO and PRISMA-P initiatives | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Type≠ | Evidence synthesis with pre-registered protocol | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Oprindelig kilde≠ | Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane. link ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasser | pre-registered meta-analysis, prospective meta-analysis, registered meta-analysis, protocol-driven meta-analysis | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Relaterede≠ | 4 | 6 |
| Resumé≠ | A protocol-based meta-analysis is a meta-analysis conducted according to a detailed, pre-registered protocol that specifies all key methodological decisions — research questions, eligibility criteria, search strategy, outcome measures, and statistical methods — before data collection begins. Pre-registration, typically through PROSPERO or a comparable registry, distinguishes this approach from post-hoc or exploratory meta-analyses and substantially reduces the risk of selective reporting and outcome switching. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatasæt ↗ |
|
|