手法を比較

	ナラティブレビュー	迅速レビュー方法論
分野	科学計量学	エビデンス統合
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2012
提唱者	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020)
種類	Literature review methodology	Framework
原典	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.	Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews interim guidance on methodological considerations for expedited reviews of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–21.
別名	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review
関連	6	1
概要	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 rapid review is a systematic synthesis method that accelerates the evidence review process by streamlining or omitting certain systematic review steps while maintaining transparent, reproducible methodology. Pioneered by Khangura et al. (2012) and codified by the Cochrane Collaboration (2020), rapid reviews answer urgent policy or clinical questions in weeks to months rather than 12-18 months required by full systematic reviews. Methodological shortcuts—such as single screening of borderline studies, abbreviated search strategies, or limiting study designs—trades some rigor for speed. Rapid reviews are increasingly vital in responding to public health emergencies (pandemics, environmental crises) and evolving clinical practice questions where waiting for a full systematic review is not feasible.