ScholarGate
Trợ lý

So sánh phương pháp

Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.

Phân tích gộp dựa trên giao thức×Tổng quan phạm vi×
Lĩnh vựcTrắc lượng khoa họcTrắc lượng khoa học
HọProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Năm ra đời1990s–2015 (Cochrane established 1993; PROSPERO launched 2011; PRISMA-P 2015)2005
Người khởi xướngCochrane Collaboration; formalized through PROSPERO and PRISMA-P initiativesHilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
LoạiEvidence synthesis with pre-registered protocolEvidence synthesis review design
Công trình gốcHiggins, 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. link ↗Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗
Tên gọi khácpre-registered meta-analysis, prospective meta-analysis, registered meta-analysis, protocol-driven meta-analysisscoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
Liên quan46
Tóm tắtA protocol-based meta-analysis is a meta-analysis conducted according to a detailed, pre-registered protocol that specifies all key methodological decisions — research questions, eligibility criteria, search strategy, outcome measures, and statistical methods — before data collection begins. Pre-registration, typically through PROSPERO or a comparable registry, distinguishes this approach from post-hoc or exploratory meta-analyses and substantially reduces the risk of selective reporting and outcome switching.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.
ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED

Đến trang tìm kiếm Tải xuống bản trình chiếu

ScholarGateSo sánh phương pháp: Protocol-based Meta-analysis · Scoping Review. Truy cập ngày 2026-06-17 từ https://scholargate.app/vi/compare