Сравнение методов
Просматривайте выбранные методы рядом; строки с различиями подсвечены.
| Систематический обзор литературы на основе протокола× | Обзор области применения (Scoping Review)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Область | Наукометрия | Наукометрия |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Год появления≠ | 1990s–2015 (Cochrane Handbook 1st ed. 1994; PRISMA-P 2015) | 2005 |
| Автор метода≠ | Cochrane Collaboration; Moher et al. (PRISMA-P) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Тип≠ | Evidence synthesis method with pre-specified protocol | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Основополагающий источник≠ | 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 ↗ |
| Другие названия | 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 |
| Связанные≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Сводка≠ | 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. |
| ScholarGateНабор данных ↗ |
|
|