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。
| 基于方案的系统性文献综述× | 快速审查× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 科学计量学 | 科学计量学 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1990s–2015 (Cochrane Handbook 1st ed. 1994; PRISMA-P 2015) | 2000s (rapidly adopted after 2005; Cochrane guidance 2020–2021) |
| 提出者≠ | Cochrane Collaboration; Moher et al. (PRISMA-P) | Developed and formalised by health technology assessment agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration |
| 类型≠ | Evidence synthesis method with pre-specified protocol | Evidence synthesis review |
| 开创性文献≠ | Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.4). Cochrane. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook link ↗ | Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. DOI ↗ |
| 别名 | protocol-registered SLR, pre-registered systematic review, PROSPERO-registered systematic review, protocol-driven systematic review | rapid evidence review, accelerated systematic review, rapid evidence assessment, REA |
| 相关 | 5 | 5 |
| 摘要≠ | A protocol-based systematic literature review is a systematic review conducted according to a fully pre-specified and publicly registered research protocol. By committing the review question, eligibility criteria, search strategy, and planned analyses to a registered document before data collection begins, this approach minimises post-hoc decision-making, selective outcome reporting, and the accumulation bias that can undermine the credibility of unregistered reviews. Registration platforms such as PROSPERO and the Open Science Framework provide permanent, time-stamped records of the protocol. | A rapid review is a streamlined form of systematic review that deliberately simplifies or omits certain steps — such as dual screening, exhaustive grey-literature search, or full risk-of-bias assessment — in order to deliver timely, policy-relevant evidence synthesis within weeks rather than years. It is increasingly used by health agencies, governments, and organisations facing urgent decision-making needs where a full systematic review is not feasible within the available time and resources. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|