Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Revisão de Escopo em Conformidade com PRISMA× | Revisão Narrativa× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área | Cientometria | Cientometria |
| Família | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 2018 (PRISMA-ScR extension); 2005 (scoping review framework) | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward |
| Autor original≠ | Tricco et al. (PRISMA-ScR); Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review framework) | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) |
| Tipo≠ | Evidence synthesis — scoping review with standardized reporting | Literature review methodology |
| Fonte seminal≠ | 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. DOI ↗ | Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. DOI ↗ |
| Outros nomes | PRISMA-ScR scoping review, scoping review with PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA scoping review, transparent scoping review | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis |
| Relacionados | 6 | 6 |
| Resumo≠ | 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 narrative review is a broad, author-directed synthesis of published literature on a topic, written to summarize, interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge without following the rigorous, pre-registered search and selection protocols that characterize systematic reviews. It draws on the author's expertise to weave disparate sources into a coherent account that identifies themes, debates, and directions for future research. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|