So sánh phương pháp

	Tổng quan tích hợp	Phân tích thư mục	Tổng quan tường thuật	Tổng hợp siêu cấp định tính
Lĩnh vực	Trắc lượng khoa học	Trắc lượng khoa học	Trắc lượng khoa học	Tổng hợp bằng chứng
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2007
Người khởi xướng	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008)
Loại	Systematic review method	Quantitative literature analysis	Literature review methodology	Framework
Công trình gốc	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	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.	Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.
Tên gọi khác	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Review
Liên quan	6	6	6	2
Tóm tắt	An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.	Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline.	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.	Qualitative meta-synthesis is a systematic method for synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative research studies (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies) to develop integrated interpretations and theoretical insights. Formalized by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) and popularized by Thomas and Harden (2008), qualitative meta-synthesis preserves the rich, contextual, interpretive nature of qualitative evidence while enabling broader conclusions across multiple studies. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numbers, qualitative meta-synthesis synthesizes themes, meanings, and conceptual insights—answering questions like 'How do cancer patients experience treatment side effects?' or 'What factors shape patient engagement with preventive health programs?' across multiple studies.