Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Metodologia revizuirii de tip "scoping review"× | Recenzie narativă× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu≠ | Sinteza dovezilor | Scientometrie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 2005 | Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward |
| Autorul original≠ | Arksey & O'Malley (2005), Extended by JBI (2020) and PRISMA-ScR (2018) | Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006) |
| Tip≠ | Framework | Literature review methodology |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. 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 ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative≠ | Scoping Review, Scoping Study, Scope of the Field | traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis |
| Înrudite≠ | 2 | 6 |
| Rezumat≠ | A scoping review is a structured, transparent literature mapping method that identifies and synthesizes evidence across a defined topic without formally assessing study quality or generating pooled effect estimates. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA-ScR (2018), scoping reviews answer 'what evidence exists and in what forms' rather than 'what does the evidence conclude'—making them ideal for charting emerging fields, knowledge gaps, and the scope of a literature base before conducting a systematic review or as a standalone rapid knowledge 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. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|