方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 综合评价× | 定性元综合× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域≠ | 科学计量学 | 证据综合 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982) | 2007 |
| 提出者≠ | Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl | Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008) |
| 类型≠ | Systematic review method | Framework |
| 开创性文献≠ | Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. DOI ↗ | Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. DOI ↗ |
| 别名 | integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis | Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Review |
| 相关≠ | 6 | 2 |
| 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. | 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. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|