Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Recenzie narativă× | Revizuire de tip scoping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Scientometrie | Scientometrie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward | 2005 |
| Autorul original≠ | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Tip≠ | Literature review methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Sursa seminală≠ | 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 ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Înrudite | 6 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|