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。
| 基于网络的间接比较× | 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≠ | 2002 (Lumley); refined 2008–2012 | 2005 |
| 提出者≠ | Thomas Lumley (statistical framework); Georgia Salanti (SUCRA and ranking methods) | Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley |
| 类型≠ | Quantitative evidence synthesis | Evidence synthesis review design |
| 开创性文献≠ | Lumley, T. (2002). Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Statistics in Medicine, 21(16), 2313–2324. 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 | NMA, network meta-analysis, mixed-treatment comparison, multiple-treatments meta-analysis | scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map |
| 相关≠ | 5 | 6 |
| 摘要≠ | Network-based Meta-analysis (NMA) extends conventional pairwise meta-analysis by simultaneously synthesizing evidence across a network of two or more competing treatments, including pairs that have never been compared head-to-head in a single trial. By combining direct and indirect evidence within a coherent statistical model, NMA produces relative effect estimates for all treatment pairs and generates a probabilistic ranking of which treatment performs best on the outcome of interest. | 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 ↗ |
|
|