方法对比

	叙事综述	文献计量分析	综合评价	范围界定审查
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	Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward	1969 (term coined); practice dates to 1920s–1930s	2005 (updated methodology); roots in Cooper (1982)	2005
提出者	Traditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)	Alan Pritchard (coined term); earlier quantitative work by Paul Otlet (1934) and S. C. Bradford (1934)	Robin Whittemore & Kathleen Knafl	Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
类型	Literature review methodology	Quantitative literature analysis	Systematic review method	Evidence synthesis review design
开创性文献	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.	Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348–349.	Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.	Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
别名	traditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis	bibliometrics, bibliometric study, bibliometric mapping, publication analysis	integrative literature review, integrative research review, ILR, integrative synthesis	scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
相关	6	6	6	6
摘要	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.	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.	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.