So sánh phương pháp

	Tổng quan Ô (Umbrella Review)	Phương pháp đánh giá tổng quan phạm vi
Lĩnh vực	Tổng hợp bằng chứng	Tổng hợp bằng chứng
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	2009	2005
Người khởi xướng	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)	Arksey & O'Malley (2005), Extended by JBI (2020) and PRISMA-ScR (2018)
Loại	Framework	Framework
Công trình gốc	Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Tên gọi khác	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews	Scoping Review, Scoping Study, Scope of the Field
Liên quan	2	2
Tóm tắt	An umbrella review is a systematic synthesis of multiple systematic reviews addressing overlapping or related research questions, typically on the same topic or intervention. Also called a 'review of reviews' or 'overview of reviews,' umbrella reviews consolidate evidence when two or more high-quality systematic reviews exist on the same clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) formally categorized this methodology; Shea et al. (2017) developed AMSTAR-2, the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of included reviews. Umbrella reviews are essential when numerous systematic reviews produce conflicting conclusions, when rapid synthesis of evidence is needed for policy or clinical guidance, or when evidence has accumulated faster than any single systematic review can capture.	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.