Comparer des méthodes

	Analyse par co-occurrence de mots	Revue narrative	Revue exploratoire
Domaine	Scientométrie	Scientométrie	Scientométrie
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	1983	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2005
Auteur d'origine	Michel Callon, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and colleagues	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Type	Scientometric network analysis technique	Literature review methodology	Evidence synthesis review design
Source fondatrice	Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.	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.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Alias	keyword co-occurrence analysis, co-word mapping, keyword co-word network, CWA	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Apparentées	6	6	6
Résumé	Co-word analysis is a scientometric technique that quantifies how often pairs of keywords, subject terms, or title words appear together across a corpus of publications. By treating simultaneous occurrence as a proxy for conceptual relatedness, it constructs networks and clusters that reveal the intellectual structure, dominant themes, and emerging sub-fields of a research domain.	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 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.