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× | 范围界定审查× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 科学计量学 | 科学计量学 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982) | 2005 |
| 提出者≠ | Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| 类型≠ | Systematic review method | 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. DOI ↗ | Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗ |
| 别名 | integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| 相关 | 6 | 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 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. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|