So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Tổng quan tài liệu có hệ thống× | Tổng quan phạm vi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Trắc lượng khoa học | Trắc lượng khoa học |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 1993 (Cochrane Collaboration); 2004 (Kitchenham SLR guidelines) | 2005 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Archie Cochrane (conceptual foundation); formalized by the Cochrane Collaboration (1993) and Barbara Kitchenham in software engineering (2004) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Loại≠ | Evidence synthesis methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Công trình gốc≠ | Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401. 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 khác | SLR, systematic review, evidence synthesis review, structured literature review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Liên quan≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | A systematic literature review (SLR) is a structured, reproducible method for identifying, appraising, and synthesizing all relevant studies on a research question. Unlike a narrative review, it follows an explicit, pre-specified protocol — from database search strings through inclusion criteria to data extraction — so that the process is transparent, auditable, and replicable by other researchers. It is widely used in medicine, education, software engineering, and the social sciences to produce the most comprehensive possible evidence base on a topic. | 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 ↗ |
|
|