Comparar métodos

	Análisis Bibliométrico	Revisión Narrativa	Revisión exploratoria
Campo	Cienciometría	Cienciometría	Cienciometría
Familia	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Año de origen	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2005
Autor original	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Tipo	Quantitative literature analysis	Literature review methodology	Evidence synthesis review design
Fuente seminal	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	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.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Alias	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Relacionados	6	6	6
Resumen	Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline.	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.	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.