Comparer des méthodes

	Rapport de cas méta-analytique	Revue narrative
Domaine	Épidémiologie	Scientométrie
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	2000s–2010s (formalized methodology)	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
Auteur d'origine	Developed iteratively in clinical epidemiology; formalized guidance by Murad et al. (2018)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
Type	Synthesis / secondary research design	Literature review methodology
Source fondatrice	Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Haffar, S., & Bazerbachi, F. (2018). Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 23(2), 60–63.	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.
Alias	pooled case report analysis, systematic case report review, case report meta-analysis, MACR	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
Apparentées	3	6
Résumé	A meta-analytic case report is a secondary research methodology that systematically identifies, appraises, and quantitatively or qualitatively pools data from multiple published individual case reports on the same clinical phenomenon. It is used most often when randomized trials or cohort data are unavailable — particularly for rare diseases, uncommon drug reactions, or novel presentations — and transforms isolated anecdotal observations into a more robust aggregate picture.	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.