Salīdzināt metodes

	Narratīvais pārskats	Ātrā pārskatīšana	Pārskata apskats
Nozare	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2000s (rapidly adopted after 2005; Cochrane guidance 2020–2021)	2005
Autors	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Developed and formalised by health technology assessment agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Tips	Literature review methodology	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.	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	rapid evidence review, accelerated systematic review, rapid evidence assessment, REA	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Saistītās	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.	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.