Comparar métodos

	Revisão de Escopo	Revisão Integrativa	Revisão de Mapeamento	Revisão Narrativa
Área	Cientometria	Cientometria	Cientometria	Cientometria
Família	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Ano de origem	2005	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
Autor original	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
Tipo	Evidence synthesis review design	Systematic review method	Systematic evidence mapping methodology	Literature review methodology
Fonte seminal	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.	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.
Outros nomes	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
Relacionados	6	6	6	6
Resumo	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 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.	A mapping review (also called a systematic map or evidence map) is a form of systematic review that aims to chart the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than synthesize findings into a single pooled answer. It categorizes studies by key dimensions — such as intervention type, population, outcome, and study design — and presents the resulting landscape visually and tabularly so that researchers and practitioners can identify clusters of evidence, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future primary research or deeper synthesis.	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.