Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Narratīvais pārskats× | Metodoloģija ātrajai pārskatīšanai× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare≠ | Zinātnometrija | Pierādījumu sintēze |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward | 2012 |
| Autors≠ | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) | Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020) |
| Tips≠ | Literature review methodology | Framework |
| 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. DOI ↗ | Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews interim guidance on methodological considerations for expedited reviews of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–21. link ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi≠ | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis | Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review |
| Saistītās≠ | 6 | 1 |
| 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 systematic synthesis method that accelerates the evidence review process by streamlining or omitting certain systematic review steps while maintaining transparent, reproducible methodology. Pioneered by Khangura et al. (2012) and codified by the Cochrane Collaboration (2020), rapid reviews answer urgent policy or clinical questions in weeks to months rather than 12-18 months required by full systematic reviews. Methodological shortcuts—such as single screening of borderline studies, abbreviated search strategies, or limiting study designs—trades some rigor for speed. Rapid reviews are increasingly vital in responding to public health emergencies (pandemics, environmental crises) and evolving clinical practice questions where waiting for a full systematic review is not feasible. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|