手法を比較

	スコーピングレビュー	書誌計量分析	マッピングレビュー	ナラティブレビュー
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	2005	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
提唱者	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
種類	Evidence synthesis review design	Quantitative literature analysis	Systematic evidence mapping methodology	Literature review methodology
原典	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.	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.
別名	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
関連	6	6	6	6
概要	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.	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.	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.	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.