Method

Space Biomedicine SRs - List of Potential Data Sources

Authors:
To read the file of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

This tool provides a list of potentially relevant sources to find trials, qualitative data and grey literature relevant to aerospace medicine systematic reviews. It is not an exhaustive list and review authors should beware that data may well exist with agency databases or be classified. It is advised to search all data sources you think may be relevant. Pre-scoping searches should be used to refine the final choice of data sources and your key terms. It is not expected that all sources will be relevant to all reviews and additional sources likely exist beyond this list. Note that some of the scientific journal article databases may require a paid subscription, but most universities will have an institutional subscription that you might be able to use to gain access. Find the most up to date methods here: https://sites.google.com/view/sr-methods/home

No file available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Article
Andrew Winnard has been leading systematic review methods for space medicine projects many years to facilitate high quality and transparent synthesis of primary data to enable evidence-based practice. You can find the most up to date methods here: https://sites.google.com/view/sr-methods/home This paper outlines evolution of space medicine synthesis methods and discussion of their initial application. Space medicine systematic review guidance has been developed for protocol planning, quantitative and qualitative synthesis, sourcing grey data, and assessing quality and transferability of space medicine human spaceflight simulation study environments. Decision algorithms for guidance and tool usage were created based on usage. Six reviews used quantitative methods in which no meta analyses were possible due to lack of controlled trials or reporting issues. All reviews scored the quality and transferability of space simulation environments. One review was qualitative. Several research gaps were identified. Successful use of the developed methods demonstrates usability and initial validity. The current space medicine evidence base resulting in no meta analyses to be possible shows the need for standardized guidance on how to synthesize data in this field. It also provides evidence to call for increasing use of controlled trials, standardizing outcome measures and improving minimum reporting standards. Space medicine is a unique field of medical research that requires specific systematic review methods.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.