So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Tổng quan phạm vi có hỗ trợ VOSviewer× | Tổng quan phạm vi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Trắc lượng khoa học | Trắc lượng khoa học |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 2010s–present | 2005 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Combination: Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review, 2005); van Eck & Waltman (VOSviewer, 2010) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| Loại≠ | Hybrid review methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| Công trình gốc≠ | van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. DOI ↗ | 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 | VOSviewer scoping review, bibliometric-enhanced scoping review, VOS-assisted scoping review, science-mapping scoping review | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| Liên quan≠ | 5 | 6 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | A VOSviewer-assisted scoping review integrates the structured, broad-mapping purpose of a scoping review with VOSviewer's bibliometric visualization capabilities. After standard database searching and eligibility screening, the retained records are exported to VOSviewer, which produces co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, and citation-based cluster maps. These visual outputs guide thematic synthesis, reveal intellectual structure, and make the scope of a field immediately transparent. | 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 ↗ |
|
|