方法对比

	领域映射范围审查	图谱综述
领域	科学计量学	科学计量学
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2005 (foundational framework); field-mapping purpose formalised c. 2015–2018	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s
提出者	Arksey & O'Malley (scoping review framework); field-mapping purpose formalised by Munn et al. and Peters et al.	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)
类型	Evidence synthesis — systematic review variant	Systematic evidence mapping methodology
开创性文献	Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic review and scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 143.	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.
别名	field-mapping scoping study, evidence-mapping scoping review, field map review, scoping review for field mapping	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map
相关	6	6
摘要	A field-mapping scoping review is a purposive variant of the scoping review in which the overarching goal is to chart the conceptual and empirical landscape of a research field — identifying what has been studied, by whom, using which methods, and where knowledge gaps remain. It follows the Arksey and O'Malley scoping framework but is explicitly oriented toward producing a structured map of a field rather than answering a focused clinical or policy question.	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.