Salīdzināt metodes

	Lietussargu apskats	Metodoloģija ātrajai pārskatīšanai	Metodoloģija pārskata apjoma noteikšanai
Nozare	Pierādījumu sintēze	Pierādījumu sintēze	Pierādījumu sintēze
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	2009	2012	2005
Autors	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)	Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020)	Arksey & O'Malley (2005), Extended by JBI (2020) and PRISMA-ScR (2018)
Tips	Framework	Framework	Framework
Pirmavots	Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.	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.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Citi nosaukumi	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews	Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review	Scoping Review, Scoping Study, Scope of the Field
Saistītās	2	1	2
Kopsavilkums	An umbrella review is a systematic synthesis of multiple systematic reviews addressing overlapping or related research questions, typically on the same topic or intervention. Also called a 'review of reviews' or 'overview of reviews,' umbrella reviews consolidate evidence when two or more high-quality systematic reviews exist on the same clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) formally categorized this methodology; Shea et al. (2017) developed AMSTAR-2, the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of included reviews. Umbrella reviews are essential when numerous systematic reviews produce conflicting conclusions, when rapid synthesis of evidence is needed for policy or clinical guidance, or when evidence has accumulated faster than any single systematic review can capture.	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.	A scoping review is a structured, transparent literature mapping method that identifies and synthesizes evidence across a defined topic without formally assessing study quality or generating pooled effect estimates. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA-ScR (2018), scoping reviews answer 'what evidence exists and in what forms' rather than 'what does the evidence conclude'—making them ideal for charting emerging fields, knowledge gaps, and the scope of a literature base before conducting a systematic review or as a standalone rapid knowledge synthesis.