Comparar métodos

	Revisão Integrativa	Metassíntese Qualitativa	Revisão de Escopo
Área	Cientometria	Síntese de evidências	Cientometria
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Ano de origem	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	2007	2005
Autor original	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
Tipo	Systematic review method	Framework	Evidence synthesis review design
Fonte seminal	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Outros nomes	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Review	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Relacionados	6	2	6
Resumo	An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.	Qualitative meta-synthesis is a systematic method for synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative research studies (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies) to develop integrated interpretations and theoretical insights. Formalized by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) and popularized by Thomas and Harden (2008), qualitative meta-synthesis preserves the rich, contextual, interpretive nature of qualitative evidence while enabling broader conclusions across multiple studies. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numbers, qualitative meta-synthesis synthesizes themes, meanings, and conceptual insights—answering questions like 'How do cancer patients experience treatment side effects?' or 'What factors shape patient engagement with preventive health programs?' across multiple studies.	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.