Sammenlign metoder
Gjennomgå de valgte metodene side om side; rader som avviker, er uthevet.
| Oversiktsgjennomgang× | Paraplygjennomgang× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagfelt≠ | Scientometri | Evidenssyntese |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Opprinnelsesår≠ | 2005 | 2009 |
| Opphavsperson≠ | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley | Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017) |
| Type≠ | Evidence synthesis review design | Framework |
| Opprinnelig kilde≠ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ | 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. DOI ↗ |
| Alias≠ | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map | Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews |
| Relaterte≠ | 6 | 2 |
| Sammendrag≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatasett ↗ |
|
|