방법 비교
선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.
| 메타회귀분석 기반 메타분석× | 스코핑 리뷰× | |
|---|---|---|
| 분야 | 과학계량학 | 과학계량학 |
| 계열 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 기원 연도≠ | 1993–1999 | 2005 |
| 창시자≠ | Stephen G. Thompson & Simon J. Sharp (systematic framework); earlier work by Berlin, Longnecker & Greenland (1993) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| 유형≠ | Quantitative evidence synthesis with covariate modeling | Evidence synthesis review design |
| 원전≠ | Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 18(20), 2693–2708. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| 별칭 | meta-regression, meta-analytic regression, weighted regression meta-analysis, MR-MA | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| 관련≠ | 4 | 6 |
| 요약≠ | Meta-regression-based meta-analysis extends standard meta-analysis by fitting a weighted regression model in which study-level characteristics (moderators) predict observed effect sizes. Rather than simply pooling effects, this approach asks why effects vary across studies — linking heterogeneity in outcomes to differences in population, intervention, design, or measurement features. It is the primary tool for explaining between-study variance in quantitative evidence synthesis. | 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. |
| ScholarGate데이터셋 ↗ |
|
|