방법 비교
선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.
| 통합적 검토× | 매핑 검토× | |
|---|---|---|
| 분야 | 과학계량학 | 과학계량학 |
| 계열 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 기원 연도≠ | 2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982) | Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s |
| 창시자≠ | Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl | Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence) |
| 유형≠ | Systematic review method | Systematic evidence mapping methodology |
| 원전≠ | Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. DOI ↗ | James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7. DOI ↗ |
| 별칭 | integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis | evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map |
| 관련 | 6 | 6 |
| 요약≠ | An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias. | 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. |
| ScholarGate데이터셋 ↗ |
|
|