Jämför metoder
Granska de valda metoderna sida vid sida; rader som skiljer sig är markerade.
| Metod för scopingsöversikt× | Metodik för snabböversikt× | |
|---|---|---|
| Ämnesområde | Evidenssyntes | Evidenssyntes |
| Familj | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ursprungsår≠ | 2005 | 2012 |
| Upphovsperson≠ | Arksey & O'Malley (2005), Extended by JBI (2020) and PRISMA-ScR (2018) | Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020) |
| Typ | Framework | Framework |
| Ursprungskälla≠ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ | Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews interim guidance on methodological considerations for expedited reviews of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–21. link ↗ |
| Alias | Scoping Review, Scoping Study, Scope of the Field | Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review |
| Närliggande≠ | 2 | 1 |
| Sammanfattning≠ | 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 rapid review is a systematic synthesis method that accelerates the evidence review process by streamlining or omitting certain systematic review steps while maintaining transparent, reproducible methodology. Pioneered by Khangura et al. (2012) and codified by the Cochrane Collaboration (2020), rapid reviews answer urgent policy or clinical questions in weeks to months rather than 12-18 months required by full systematic reviews. Methodological shortcuts—such as single screening of borderline studies, abbreviated search strategies, or limiting study designs—trades some rigor for speed. Rapid reviews are increasingly vital in responding to public health emergencies (pandemics, environmental crises) and evolving clinical practice questions where waiting for a full systematic review is not feasible. |
| ScholarGateDatamängd ↗ |
|
|