Confronta i metodi

	Revisione Integrativa	Revisione Narrativa	Revisione Esplorativa
Campo	Scientometria	Scientometria	Scientometria
Famiglia	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Anno di origine	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2005
Ideatore	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Tipo	Systematic review method	Literature review methodology	Evidence synthesis review design
Fonte seminale	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	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	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Correlati	6	6	6
Sintesi	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 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.