Vertaile menetelmiä

	Integroiva katsaus	Kartoittava katsaus – Näytön ja kirjallisuuden kartoittava katsaus
Tieteenala	Scientometriikka	Scientometriikka
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
Kehittäjä	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
Tyyppi	Systematic review method	Systematic evidence mapping methodology
Alkuperäislähde	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.
Rinnakkaisnimet	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
Liittyvät	6	6
Tiivistelmä	An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.	A mapping review (also called a systematic map or evidence map) is a form of systematic review that aims to chart the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than synthesize findings into a single pooled answer. It categorizes studies by key dimensions — such as intervention type, population, outcome, and study design — and presents the resulting landscape visually and tabularly so that researchers and practitioners can identify clusters of evidence, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future primary research or deeper synthesis.