方法对比

	图谱综述	文献计量分析	共词分析	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	Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	1983	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
提出者	Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence)	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Michel Callon, Jean-Pierre Courtial, and colleagues	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
类型	Systematic evidence mapping methodology	Quantitative literature analysis	Scientometric network analysis technique	Literature review methodology
开创性文献	James, K. L., Randall, N. P., & Haddaway, N. R. (2016). A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 7.	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235.	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	evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	keyword co-occurrence analysis, co-word mapping, keyword co-word network, CWA	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
相关	6	6	6	6
摘要	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.	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.	Co-word analysis is a scientometric technique that quantifies how often pairs of keywords, subject terms, or title words appear together across a corpus of publications. By treating simultaneous occurrence as a proxy for conceptual relatedness, it constructs networks and clusters that reveal the intellectual structure, dominant themes, and emerging sub-fields of a research domain.	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.