Sammenlign metoder
Gennemgå dine valgte metoder side om side; rækker, der afviger, er fremhævet.
| Hurtig gennemgang× | Scoping Review× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagområde | Scientometri | Scientometri |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Oprindelsesår≠ | 2000s (rapidly adopted after 2005; Cochrane guidance 2020–2021) | 2005 |
| Ophavsperson≠ | Developed and formalised by health technology assessment agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Type≠ | Evidence synthesis review | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Oprindelig kilde≠ | Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasser | rapid evidence review, accelerated systematic review, rapid evidence assessment, REA | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Relaterede≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Resumé≠ | A rapid review is a streamlined form of systematic review that deliberately simplifies or omits certain steps — such as dual screening, exhaustive grey-literature search, or full risk-of-bias assessment — in order to deliver timely, policy-relevant evidence synthesis within weeks rather than years. It is increasingly used by health agencies, governments, and organisations facing urgent decision-making needs where a full systematic review is not feasible within the available time and resources. | 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 ↗ |
|
|