Módszerek összehasonlítása
Tekintse át a kiválasztott módszereket egymás mellett; az eltérő sorok kiemelve jelennek meg.
| Protokollalapú átfogó áttekintés× | Feltérképező áttekintés× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tudományterület | Tudománymetria | Tudománymetria |
| Módszercsalád | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Keletkezés éve≠ | 2011-2015 (PROSPERO launched 2011; JBI umbrella review guidelines 2015) | 2005 |
| Megalkotó≠ | Developed from umbrella review methodology; protocol registration practice formalized through PROSPERO (York) and JBI | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Típus≠ | Registered evidence synthesis review | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Alapmű≠ | Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 132-140. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Alternatív nevek | pre-registered umbrella review, prospero-registered umbrella review, registered overview of reviews, protocol-driven umbrella review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Kapcsolódó≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Összefoglaló≠ | A protocol-based umbrella review is an umbrella review — a synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses on a common topic — conducted under a publicly pre-registered protocol, typically in PROSPERO or a similar registry. Pre-registering the protocol before data collection begins commits the research team to prospectively defined eligibility criteria, search strategy, appraisal tools, and synthesis methods, sharply reducing the risk of outcome reporting bias and post-hoc analytical flexibility. | 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. |
| ScholarGateAdatkészlet ↗ |
|
|