Módszerek összehasonlítása

	Integratív áttekintés	Mapping Review
Tudományterület	Tudománymetria	Tudománymetria
Módszercsalád	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Keletkezés éve	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
Megalkotó	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
Típus	Systematic review method	Systematic evidence mapping methodology
Alapmű	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.
Alternatív nevek	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
Kapcsolódó	6	6
Összefoglaló	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.