INTRODUCING AN AEROSPACE MEDICINE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW GROUP
- Paper number
IAC-17,A1,2,14,x41334
- Author
Dr. Rochelle Velho, The University of Warwick, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Dr. Andrew Winnard, University of Northumbria, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Dr. Mona Nasser, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Mr. Nagarjun Konda, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Mr. Rama Santhosh Karri, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Prof. Simon Evetts, SeaSpace Research, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Dr. Eilis Boudreau, OHSU, United States
- Coauthor
Dr. Nick Caplan, University of Northumbria, United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Dr. Peter Ward, United Kingdom Space Biomedicine Association (UKSBA), United Kingdom
- Coauthor
Prof. David Gradwell, Kings College London, United Kingdom
- Year
2017
- Abstract
Introduction Systematic review finds, appraises and interprets evidence to inform clinical and operational decision making and guidelines. Systematic review methods reduce bias, increase statistical power and perform gap analysis. Conducting systematic reviews requires specific methodological skills, therefore, systematic review groups are established. Due to an increasing amount of research in Aerospace Medicine, there is a need for systematic review in this field. We have, therefore, begun developing an Aerospace Medicine Systematic Review Group and conducted: (A) A pilot systematic review on the effectiveness of countermeasures against spinal changes due to spaceflight. This developed methods for judging the applicability of bedrest simulation studies to spaceflight and statistics to compare countermeasure results to baseline data. (B) Priority setting exercises involving key stakeholders. Methods (A) Electronic databases were searched from the start of their records to November 2014. Studies were assessed with PEDro, Cochrane Risk of Bias and a bed-rest study quality tool. Magnitude based inferences were used to assess countermeasure effectiveness. (B) The CAA, AsMA, RAF, ESA, International Space University and SeaSpace Research Ltd. were asked to feedback on group proposals and recommend topical and beneficial reviews to conduct during group establishment. Results (A) Seven studies were included in the systematic review that found heterogeneity of outcome measures, no participant reported outcome measures and no countermeasure able to fully protect against all expected spaceflight induced changes. Research and operational recommendations were made and included in a European Space Agency Topical Team Report on post-mission rehabilitation. (B) Stakeholders felt the proposed group would be useful and contributed ideas for initial review topics. Discussion The initial systematic review and its impact to an ESA Topical Team Report demonstrates the research and operational usefulness of the group concept. Initial positive response of several major organisations in the Aerospace Medicine field provides support to group proposals and a list of quick win review titles will be reviewed to determine the most beneficial. Funding options to undertake initial reviews and develop resources such as a website with methodological guidance and directory of reviews will be sought.
- Abstract document
- Manuscript document
IAC-17,A1,2,14,x41334.pdf (🔒 authorized access only).
To get the manuscript, please contact IAF Secretariat.