Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Systemaattinen kirjallisuuskatsaus× | Kartoittava katsaus× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Scientometriikka | Scientometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1993 (Cochrane Collaboration); 2004 (Kitchenham SLR guidelines) | 2005 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Archie Cochrane (conceptual foundation); formalized by the Cochrane Collaboration (1993) and Barbara Kitchenham in software engineering (2004) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Tyyppi≠ | Evidence synthesis methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401. link ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | SLR, systematic review, evidence synthesis review, structured literature review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Liittyvät≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|