方法对比

	综合评价	叙事综述	定性元综合	范围界定审查
领域	科学计量学	科学计量学	证据综合	科学计量学
方法族	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
起源年份	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	2007	2005
提出者	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008)	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
类型	Systematic review method	Literature review methodology	Framework	Evidence synthesis review design
开创性文献	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	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.	Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
别名	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Review	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
相关	6	6	2	6
摘要	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 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.	Qualitative meta-synthesis is a systematic method for synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative research studies (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies) to develop integrated interpretations and theoretical insights. Formalized by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) and popularized by Thomas and Harden (2008), qualitative meta-synthesis preserves the rich, contextual, interpretive nature of qualitative evidence while enabling broader conclusions across multiple studies. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numbers, qualitative meta-synthesis synthesizes themes, meanings, and conceptual insights—answering questions like 'How do cancer patients experience treatment side effects?' or 'What factors shape patient engagement with preventive health programs?' across multiple studies.	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.