方法对比

	文献计量分析	综合评价	图谱综述	叙事综述
领域	科学计量学	科学计量学	科学计量学	科学计量学
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
提出者	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
类型	Quantitative literature analysis	Systematic review method	Systematic evidence mapping methodology	Literature review methodology
开创性文献	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.	Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117.
别名	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
相关	6	6	6	6
摘要	Bibliometric analysis applies statistical and mathematical methods to bibliographic records — publications, citations, authors, journals, and keywords — to measure and map the structure, output, and intellectual evolution of a research field. It is widely used to identify influential works, prolific authors, productive journals, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes across any academic discipline.	An integrative review is a systematic method for synthesising literature that allows the simultaneous inclusion of diverse study designs — experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental — as well as theoretical papers. Unlike the conventional systematic review, which is restricted to controlled trials or a single methodology, the integrative review builds a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by drawing on the full breadth of the relevant evidence base. The method follows a rigorous, structured pipeline to ensure transparency and minimise bias.	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.	A narrative review is a broad, author-directed synthesis of published literature on a topic, written to summarize, interpret, and contextualize existing knowledge without following the rigorous, pre-registered search and selection protocols that characterize systematic reviews. It draws on the author's expertise to weave disparate sources into a coherent account that identifies themes, debates, and directions for future research.