手法を比較

	書誌計量分析	質的メタ合成	スコーピングレビュー
分野	科学計量学	エビデンス統合	科学計量学
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	2007	2005
提唱者	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
種類	Quantitative literature analysis	Framework	Evidence synthesis review design
原典	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
別名	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Review	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
関連	6	2	6
概要	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.	Qualitative meta-synthesis is a systematic method for synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative research studies (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies) to develop integrated interpretations and theoretical insights. Formalized by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) and popularized by Thomas and Harden (2008), qualitative meta-synthesis preserves the rich, contextual, interpretive nature of qualitative evidence while enabling broader conclusions across multiple studies. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numbers, qualitative meta-synthesis synthesizes themes, meanings, and conceptual insights—answering questions like 'How do cancer patients experience treatment side effects?' or 'What factors shape patient engagement with preventive health programs?' across multiple studies.	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.