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。

定性元综合×范围界定审查×
领域证据综合科学计量学
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份20072005
提出者Sandelowski & Barroso (2007), Popularized by Thomas & Harden (2008)Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'Malley
类型FrameworkEvidence synthesis review design
开创性文献Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 45. 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Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Thematic Synthesis, Metasynthesis, Qualitative Systematic Reviewscoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence map
相关26
摘要Qualitative meta-synthesis is a systematic method for synthesizing findings from multiple qualitative research studies (interviews, focus groups, ethnographies) to develop integrated interpretations and theoretical insights. Formalized by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007) and popularized by Thomas and Harden (2008), qualitative meta-synthesis preserves the rich, contextual, interpretive nature of qualitative evidence while enabling broader conclusions across multiple studies. Unlike quantitative meta-analysis, which pools numbers, qualitative meta-synthesis synthesizes themes, meanings, and conceptual insights—answering questions like 'How do cancer patients experience treatment side effects?' or 'What factors shape patient engagement with preventive health programs?' across multiple studies.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. 3 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: Qualitative Meta-Synthesis · Scoping Review. 于 2026-06-20 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare