Salīdzināt metodes

	PRISMA-atbilstīga izpētes pārskata (Scoping Review) veikšana	Kartēšanas pārskats
Nozare	Zinātnometrija	Zinātnometrija
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	2018 (PRISMA-ScR extension); 2005 (scoping review framework)	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
Autors	Tricco et al. (PRISMA-ScR); Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review framework)	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
Tips	Evidence synthesis — scoping review with standardized reporting	Systematic evidence mapping methodology
Pirmavots	Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.
Citi nosaukumi	PRISMA-ScR scoping review, scoping review with PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA scoping review, transparent scoping review	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
Saistītās	6	6
Kopsavilkums	A PRISMA-compliant scoping review is a scoping review conducted and reported according to the PRISMA for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) extension, a 20-item checklist plus explanation published by Tricco et al. in 2018. Scoping reviews map the breadth and volume of evidence on a topic without synthesizing effect sizes; the PRISMA-ScR overlay adds transparency, reproducibility, and reporting completeness standards analogous to those PRISMA provides for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.	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.