So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Tổng quan phạm vi× | Tổng quan lập bản đồ× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Trắc lượng khoa học | Trắc lượng khoa học |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 2005 | Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley | Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence) |
| Loại≠ | Evidence synthesis review design | Systematic evidence mapping methodology |
| Công trình gốc≠ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ | James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7. DOI ↗ |
| Tên gọi khác | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map | evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map |
| Liên quan | 6 | 6 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | 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. | A mapping review (also called a systematic map or evidence map) is a form of systematic review that aims to chart the extent, range, and nature of evidence on a broad topic rather than synthesize findings into a single pooled answer. It categorizes studies by key dimensions — such as intervention type, population, outcome, and study design — and presents the resulting landscape visually and tabularly so that researchers and practitioners can identify clusters of evidence, knowledge gaps, and priorities for future primary research or deeper synthesis. |
| ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu ↗ |
|
|