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。

范围界定审查×叙事综述×
领域科学计量学科学计量学
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份2005Pre-20th century practice; peer-reviewed methodological guidance from 2000s onward
提出者Hilary Arksey & Lisa O'MalleyTraditional academic practice; formalized discussion by Green, Johnson & Adams (2006)
类型Evidence synthesis review designLiterature review methodology
开创性文献Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. DOI ↗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. DOI ↗
别名scoping study, literature scoping, evidence mapping review, rapid evidence maptraditional review, expert review, unsystematic review, narrative synthesis
相关66
摘要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.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.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 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: Scoping Review · Narrative Review. 于 2026-06-19 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare