Comparer des méthodes

	Revue exploratoire	Analyse bibliométrique	Revue intégrative	Revue cartographique
Domaine	Scientométrie	Scientométrie	Scientométrie	Scientométrie
Famille	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Année d'origine	2005	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
Auteur d'origine	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
Type	Evidence synthesis review design	Quantitative literature analysis	Systematic review method	Systematic evidence mapping methodology
Source fondatrice	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.
Alias	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
Apparentées	6	6	6	6
Résumé	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.	Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline.	An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.	A mapping review (also called a systematic map or evidence map) is a form of systematic review that aims to chart the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than synthesize findings into a single pooled answer. It categorizes studies by key dimensions — such as intervention type, population, outcome, and study design — and presents the resulting landscape visually and tabularly so that researchers and practitioners can identify clusters of evidence, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future primary research or deeper synthesis.