Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Feld-Mapping Scoping Review× | Scoping Review× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Szientometrie | Szientometrie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 2005 (foundational framework); field-mapping purpose formalised c. 2015–2018 | 2005 |
| Urheber≠ | Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review framework); field-mapping purpose formalised by Munn et al. and Peters et al. | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Typ≠ | Evidence synthesis — systematic review variant | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic review and scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 143. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasnamen | field-mapping scoping study, evidence-mapping scoping review, field map review, scoping review for field mapping | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Verwandt | 6 | 6 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | A field-mapping scoping review is a purposive variant of the scoping review in which the overarching goal is to chart the conceptual and empirical landscape of a research field — identifying what has been studied, by whom, using which methods, and where knowledge gaps remain. It follows the Arksey and O'Malley scoping framework but is explicitly oriented toward producing a structured map of a field rather than answering a focused clinical or policy question. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|