Comparison of review methodologies and suitability for this study
| Analytical dimension | Systematic review | Bibliometric review | Integrative review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary aim | Systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence addressing a defined research question | Map structural patterns, citation networks, co-authorship networks, co-citation structures across a field | Synthesise diverse theoretical perspectives to identify gaps and develop conceptual frameworks across domains |
| Epistemological orientation | Predominantly positivist; prioritises replicability and procedural transparency | Quantitative and descriptive; focuses on structural patterns rather than theoretical meaning | Interpretive; prioritises theoretical coherence and conceptual contribution |
| Selection logic | Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria applied uniformly across all retrieved records | Citation metrics, co-authorship patterns, co-citation structures and keyword co-occurrence | Theoretical relevance, conceptual significance and contribution to the integrative argument |
| Type of synthesis | Aggregative; findings are pooled or meta-analysed | Structural and visual; produces maps, clusters and trend analyses | Interpretive; concepts are compared, contrasted and reconfigured across studies and disciplines |
| Disciplinary scope | Typically confined to a single field or well-defined literature | Single or multiple fields, depending on the corpus | Explicitly cross-disciplinary; suited to integrating literatures that have evolved in parallel |
| Transparency mechanism | PRISMA flow diagrams, protocol registration and inter-rater reliability checks | Bibliometric software producing citation maps and co-occurrence networks | Audit trail with dated memos, inclusion/exclusion logs and concept matrices |
| Output | Empirical summary with effect sizes or thematic aggregation | Structural map of field development and intellectual structure | Conceptual framework or theoretical contribution grounded in cross-field synthesis |
| Suitability for this study | Low: the study does not aim to catalogue empirical findings but to integrate theoretical perspectives across disciplines | Low: the study does not aim to map citation structures but to develop a temporally grounded conceptual framework | High: enables cross-disciplinary synthesis across service marketing and cognitive psychology, supporting a processual understanding of patient value formation |
| Analytical dimension | Systematic review | Bibliometric review | Integrative review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary aim | Systematically identify, appraise and synthesise evidence addressing a defined research question | Map structural patterns, citation networks, co-authorship networks, co-citation structures across a field | Synthesise diverse theoretical perspectives to identify gaps and develop conceptual frameworks across domains |
| Epistemological orientation | Predominantly positivist; prioritises replicability and procedural transparency | Quantitative and descriptive; focuses on structural patterns rather than theoretical meaning | Interpretive; prioritises theoretical coherence and conceptual contribution |
| Selection logic | Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria applied uniformly across all retrieved records | Citation metrics, co-authorship patterns, co-citation structures and keyword co-occurrence | Theoretical relevance, conceptual significance and contribution to the integrative argument |
| Type of synthesis | Aggregative; findings are pooled or meta-analysed | Structural and visual; produces maps, clusters and trend analyses | Interpretive; concepts are compared, contrasted and reconfigured across studies and disciplines |
| Disciplinary scope | Typically confined to a single field or well-defined literature | Single or multiple fields, depending on the corpus | Explicitly cross-disciplinary; suited to integrating literatures that have evolved in parallel |
| Transparency mechanism | Bibliometric software producing citation maps and co-occurrence networks | Audit trail with dated memos, inclusion/exclusion logs and concept matrices | |
| Output | Empirical summary with effect sizes or thematic aggregation | Structural map of field development and intellectual structure | Conceptual framework or theoretical contribution grounded in cross-field synthesis |
| Suitability for this study | Low: the study does not aim to catalogue empirical findings but to integrate theoretical perspectives across disciplines | Low: the study does not aim to map citation structures but to develop a temporally grounded conceptual framework | High: enables cross-disciplinary synthesis across service marketing and cognitive psychology, supporting a processual understanding of patient value formation |
Elaborated by the authors based on Whittemore and Knafl (2005), Snyder (2019) and Cronin and George (2023)