Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Revizuirea sistematică a literaturii bazată pe protocol× | Revizuire de tip scoping× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Scientometrie | Scientometrie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1990s–2015 (Cochrane Handbook 1st ed. 1994; PRISMA-P 2015) | 2005 |
| Autorul original≠ | Cochrane Collaboration; Moher et al. (PRISMA-P) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Tip≠ | Evidence synthesis method with pre-specified protocol | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook link ↗ | 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 | protocol-registered SLR, pre-registered systematic review, PROSPERO-registered systematic review, protocol-driven systematic review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Înrudite≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | A protocol-based systematic literature review is a systematic review conducted according to a fully pre-specified and publicly registered research protocol. By committing the review question, eligibility criteria, search strategy, and planned analyses to a registered document before data collection begins, this approach minimises post-hoc decision-making, selective outcome reporting, and the accumulation bias that can undermine the credibility of unregistered reviews. Registration platforms such as PROSPERO and the Open Science Framework provide permanent, time-stamped records of the protocol. | 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 ↗ |
|
|