Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Aikavälimeta-analyysi× | Kartoittava katsaus× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Scientometriikka | Scientometriikka |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1992 (cumulative form); refined through 2000s | 2005 |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Lau et al. (cumulative variant); Borenstein et al. (general meta-analytic framework) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Tyyppi≠ | Quantitative evidence synthesis variant | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Wiley. ISBN: 978-0470057247 | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | temporal meta-analysis, period-stratified meta-analysis, time-segmented meta-analysis, chronological meta-analysis | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Liittyvät≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Time-sliced meta-analysis is a variant of standard meta-analysis in which the primary studies are partitioned into successive time periods (slices) and a separate pooled effect estimate is computed for each period. By comparing pooled effects across periods, researchers can detect whether an intervention's effectiveness, a relationship's magnitude, or a methodological consensus has shifted over time. This temporal lens transforms a static evidence summary into a longitudinal narrative of how scientific knowledge on a topic has evolved. | 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 ↗ |
|
|