ScholarGate
助手

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×范围界定审查×
领域科学计量学科学计量学
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份1993–19992005
提出者Stephen G. Thompson & Simon J. Sharp (systematic framework); earlier work by Berlin, Longnecker & Greenland (1993)Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
类型Quantitative evidence synthesis with covariate modelingEvidence synthesis review design
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 ↗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meta-regression, meta-analytic regression, weighted regression meta-analysis, MR-MAscoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
相关46
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.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
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: meta-regression-based meta-analysis · Scoping Review. 于 2026-06-18 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare