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。
| 图谱综述× | 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≠ | Late 1990s–2000s; major methodological formalization ~2010s | 2005 |
| 提出者≠ | Buckland & Gann (1998); formalized by systematic review community (Campbell Collaboration, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| 类型≠ | Systematic evidence mapping methodology | Evidence synthesis review design |
| 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. 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 | evidence map, systematic map, research map, literature map | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| 相关 | 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. | 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 ↗ |
|
|