手法を比較

	マッピングレビュー	共起語分析	ナラティブレビュー	スコーピングレビュー
分野	科学計量学	科学計量学	科学計量学	科学計量学
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s	1983	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2005
提唱者	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)	Michel Callon, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and colleagues	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
種類	Systematic evidence mapping methodology	Scientometric network analysis technique	Literature review methodology	Evidence synthesis review design
原典	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.	Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.	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.
別名	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map	keyword co-occurrence analysis, co-word mapping, keyword co-word network, CWA	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
関連	6	6	6	6
概要	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.	Co-word analysis is a scientometric technique that quantifies how often pairs of keywords, subject terms, or title words appear together across a corpus of publications. By treating simultaneous occurrence as a proxy for conceptual relatedness, it constructs networks and clusters that reveal the intellectual structure, dominant themes, and emerging sub-fields of a research domain.	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.