ScholarGate
Asystent

Porównaj metody

Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.

Metaanaliza oparta na protokole×Przegląd zakresowy×
DziedzinaNaukometriaNaukometria
RodzinaProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Rok powstania1990s–2015 (Cochrane established 1993; PROSPERO launched 2011; PRISMA-P 2015)2005
TwórcaCochrane Collaboration; formalized through PROSPERO and PRISMA-P initiativesHilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
TypEvidence synthesis with pre-registered protocolEvidence synthesis review design
Źródło pierwotneHiggins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane. link ↗Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗
Inne nazwypre-registered meta-analysis, prospective meta-analysis, registered meta-analysis, protocol-driven meta-analysisscoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Pokrewne46
PodsumowanieA protocol-based meta-analysis is a meta-analysis conducted according to a detailed, pre-registered protocol that specifies all key methodological decisions — research questions, eligibility criteria, search strategy, outcome measures, and statistical methods — before data collection begins. Pre-registration, typically through PROSPERO or a comparable registry, distinguishes this approach from post-hoc or exploratory meta-analyses and substantially reduces the risk of selective reporting and outcome switching.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.
ScholarGateZbiór danych
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED

Przejdź do wyszukiwania Pobierz slajdy

ScholarGatePorównaj metody: Protocol-based Meta-analysis · Scoping Review. Pobrano 2026-06-17 z https://scholargate.app/pl/compare