Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Meta-Analiză× | Recenzie sistematică× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Scriere academică | Scriere academică |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1976 | 1992 |
| Autorul original≠ | Glass (1976, term coining); Fisher and Pearson (statistical foundations) | Cochrane Collaboration (1992) |
| Tip | Document Type | Document Type |
| Sursa seminală | Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. DOI ↗ | Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | quantitative synthesis, meta-synthesis, pooled analysis, statistical integration | systematic literature review, evidence synthesis, scoping review, mapping review |
| Înrudite≠ | 2 | 3 |
| Rezumat≠ | Meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of quantitative findings from multiple independent studies to produce a combined effect estimate. By aggregating data across studies, meta-analysis increases statistical power, reduces random error, and provides a precise summary of an intervention's effectiveness or an association's magnitude. Gene V. Glass coined the term in 1976, formalizing a technique that has become indispensable for evidence synthesis in medicine, psychology, education, and other evidence-based disciplines. | A systematic review is a structured, transparent synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific research question. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews employ comprehensive database searches, predefined selection criteria, quality assessment, and rigorous reporting (PRISMA guideline). The Cochrane Collaboration (founded 1992) established this methodology as the gold standard for evidence synthesis in healthcare and social sciences. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|