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。
| 基于元回归的元分析× | 文献计量分析× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 科学计量学 | 科学计量学 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1993–1999 | 1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s |
| 提出者≠ | Stephen G. Thompson & Simon J. Sharp (systematic framework); earlier work by Berlin, Longnecker & Greenland (1993) | Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934) |
| 类型≠ | Quantitative evidence synthesis with covariate modeling | Quantitative literature analysis |
| 开创性文献≠ | Thompson, S. G., & Sharp, S. J. (1999). Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Statistics in Medicine, 18(20), 2693–2708. DOI ↗ | Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349. link ↗ |
| 别名 | meta-regression, meta-analytic regression, weighted regression meta-analysis, MR-MA | bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis |
| 相关≠ | 4 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | Meta-regression-based meta-analysis extends standard meta-analysis by fitting a weighted regression model in which study-level characteristics (moderators) predict observed effect sizes. Rather than simply pooling effects, this approach asks why effects vary across studies — linking heterogeneity in outcomes to differences in population, intervention, design, or measurement features. It is the primary tool for explaining between-study variance in quantitative evidence 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. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|