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。

快速审查方法论×范围界定性综述方法×
领域证据综合证据综合
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份20122005
提出者Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020)Arksey & O'Malley (2005), Extended by JBI (2020) and PRISMA-ScR (2018)
类型FrameworkFramework
开创性文献Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews interim guidance on methodological considerations for expedited reviews of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–21. link ↗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Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic ReviewScoping Review, Scoping Study, Scope of the Field
相关12
摘要A rapid review is a systematic synthesis method that accelerates the evidence review process by streamlining or omitting certain systematic review steps while maintaining transparent, reproducible methodology. Pioneered by Khangura et al. (2012) and codified by the Cochrane Collaboration (2020), rapid reviews answer urgent policy or clinical questions in weeks to months rather than 12-18 months required by full systematic reviews. Methodological shortcuts—such as single screening of borderline studies, abbreviated search strategies, or limiting study designs—trades some rigor for speed. Rapid reviews are increasingly vital in responding to public health emergencies (pandemics, environmental crises) and evolving clinical practice questions where waiting for a full systematic review is not feasible.A scoping review is a structured, transparent literature mapping method that identifies and synthesizes evidence across a defined topic without formally assessing study quality or generating pooled effect estimates. Developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and PRISMA-ScR (2018), scoping reviews answer 'what evidence exists and in what forms' rather than 'what does the evidence conclude'—making them ideal for charting emerging fields, knowledge gaps, and the scope of a literature base before conducting a systematic review or as a standalone rapid knowledge synthesis.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Rapid Review Methodology · Scoping Review Methodology. 于 2026-06-19 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare