Salīdzināt metodes

	Narratīvais pārskats	Bibliometriskā analīze	Integratīvā apskats	Ātrā pārskatīšana	Pārskata apskats
Nozare	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	2000s (rapidly adopted after 2005; Cochrane guidance 2020–2021)	2005
Autors	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Developed and formalised by health technology assessment agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Tips	Literature review methodology	Quantitative literature analysis	Systematic review method	Evidence synthesis review	Evidence synthesis review design
Pirmavots	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.	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Citi nosaukumi	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	rapid evidence review, accelerated systematic review, rapid evidence assessment, REA	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Saistītās	6	6	6	5	6
Kopsavilkums	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.	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.	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 rapid review is a streamlined form of systematic review that deliberately simplifies or omits certain steps — such as dual screening, exhaustive grey-literature search, or full risk-of-bias assessment — in order to deliver timely, policy-relevant evidence synthesis within weeks rather than years. It is increasingly used by health agencies, governments, and organisations facing urgent decision-making needs where a full systematic review is not feasible within the available time and resources.	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.