Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Narratiivinen katsaus× | Systemaattinen kirjallisuuskatsaus× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Scientometriikka | Scientometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward | 1993 (Cochrane Collaboration); 2004 (Kitchenham SLR guidelines) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) | Archie Cochrane (conceptual foundation); formalized by the Cochrane Collaboration (1993) and Barbara Kitchenham in software engineering (2004) |
| Tyyppi≠ | Literature review methodology | Evidence synthesis methodology |
| 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. DOI ↗ | Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401. link ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis | SLR, systematic review, evidence synthesis review, structured literature review |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 5 |
| 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. | A systematic literature review (SLR) is a structured, reproducible method for identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a research question. Unlike a narrative review, it follows an explicit, pre-specified protocol — from database search strings through inclusion criteria to data extraction — so that the process is transparent, auditable, and replicable by other researchers. It is widely used in medicine, education, software engineering, and the social sciences to produce the most comprehensive possible evidence base on a topic. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|