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。
| 系统评价× | 叙述性文献综述× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 学术写作 | 学术写作 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1992 | 1900 |
| 提出者≠ | Cochrane Collaboration (1992) | Research community (traditional academic writing format) |
| 类型 | Document Type | Document Type |
| 开创性文献≠ | Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. 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 | systematic literature review, evidence synthesis, scoping review, mapping review | narrative review, literature survey, interpretive review, state-of-the-art review |
| 相关 | 3 | 3 |
| 摘要≠ | A systematic review is a structured, transparent synthesis of all available evidence addressing a specific research question. Unlike narrative reviews, systematic reviews employ comprehensive database searches, predefined selection criteria, quality assessment, and rigorous reporting (PRISMA guideline). The Cochrane Collaboration (founded 1992) established this methodology as the gold standard for evidence synthesis in healthcare and social sciences. | A narrative literature review is an interpretive synthesis of published research organized around themes, concepts, or historical progression rather than systematic search. Unlike systematic reviews, narrative reviews employ subjective study selection, do not require protocol registration, and prioritize depth of interpretation over exhaustive comprehensiveness. Narrative reviews are valuable for conceptual synthesis, exploring emerging fields with sparse literature, and providing historical context; they have been the traditional form of scholarly literature synthesis since the inception of academic journals. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|