Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Articolo di ricerca originale× | Una revisione sistematica× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Scrittura accademica | Scrittura accademica |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine≠ | 1665 | 1992 |
| Ideatore≠ | Scientific research community | Cochrane Collaboration (1992) |
| Tipo | Document Type | Document Type |
| Fonte seminale≠ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2023). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. ICMJE. link ↗ | Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | research paper, empirical article, primary research, journal article | systematic literature review, evidence synthesis, scoping review, mapping review |
| Correlati≠ | 5 | 3 |
| Sintesi≠ | An original research article is the primary vehicle for reporting new empirical findings in a discipline. Following the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), it represents a researcher's novel data, analysis, and interpretation. The journal article format has been the gold standard for scientific communication since the establishment of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665. | A systematic review is a structured, transparent synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific research question. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews employ comprehensive database searches, predefined selection criteria, quality assessment, and rigorous reporting (PRISMA guideline). The Cochrane Collaboration (founded 1992) established this methodology as the gold standard for evidence synthesis in healthcare and social sciences. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|