Vertaile menetelmiä

	Narratiivinen katsaus	Integroiva katsaus	Pikakatsaus	Kartoittava katsaus
Tieteenala	Scientometriikka	Scientometriikka	Scientometriikka	Scientometriikka
Menetelmäperhe	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Syntyvuosi	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	2000s (rapidly adopted after 2005; Cochrane guidance 2020–2021)	2005
Kehittäjä	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Developed and formalised by health technology assessment agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Tyyppi	Literature review methodology	Systematic review method	Evidence synthesis review	Evidence synthesis review design
Alkuperäislähde	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.	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	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.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Rinnakkaisnimet	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	rapid evidence review, accelerated systematic review, rapid evidence assessment, REA	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Liittyvät	6	6	5	6
Tiivistelmä	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.	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 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.