Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Revisión sistemática× | Meta-análisis× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Escritura académica | Escritura académica |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | 1992 | 1976 |
| Autor original≠ | Cochrane Collaboration (1992) | Glass (1976, term coining); Fisher and Pearson (statistical foundations) |
| Tipo | Document Type | Document Type |
| Fuente seminal | Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. DOI ↗ | Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | systematic literature review, evidence synthesis, scoping review, mapping review | quantitative synthesis, meta-synthesis, pooled analysis, statistical integration |
| Relacionados≠ | 3 | 2 |
| Resumen≠ | A systematic review is a structured, transparent synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific research question. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews employ comprehensive database searches, predefined selection criteria, quality assessment, and rigorous reporting (PRISMA guideline). The Cochrane Collaboration (founded 1992) established this methodology as the gold standard for evidence synthesis in healthcare and social sciences. | Meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of quantitative findings from multiple independent studies to produce a combined effect estimate. By aggregating data across studies, meta-analysis increases statistical power, reduces random error, and provides a precise summary of an intervention's effectiveness or an association's magnitude. Gene V. Glass coined the term in 1976, formalizing a technique that has become indispensable for evidence synthesis in medicine, psychology, education, and other evidence-based disciplines. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|