Evidence Supporting the Management of Medical Conditions During Long-Duration Spaceflight: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Future long-duration space exploration missions, such as traveling to Mars, will create an increase in communication time delays and disruptions and remove the viability of emergency returns to Earth for timely medical treatment. Thus, higher levels of medical autonomy are necessary. Crew selection is proposed as the first line of defense to minimize medical risk for future missions; however, the second proposed line of defense is medical preparedness and crew member autonomy. In an effort to develop a decision support system, the Canadian Space Agency mandated a team of scientists from Thales Research and Technology Canada (Québec, QC) and Université Laval (Québec, QC) to create an evidence-based medical condition database linking mission-critical human conditions with key causal factors, diagnostic and treatment information, and probable outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To complement this database, we are currently conducting a scoping review to better understand the depth and breadth of evidence about managing medical conditions in space. METHODS: This scoping review will adhere to quality standards for scoping reviews, employing Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien's 6-stage methodology; the reported results will follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews. In stage 1, we identified the research question in collaboration with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the main knowledge user. We prioritized 10 medical conditions: (1) acute coronary syndrome, (2) atrial fibrillation, (3) eye penetration, (4) herniated disk, (5) nephrolithiasis, (6) pulmonary embolism, (7) retinal detachment, (8) sepsis, (9) stroke, and (10) spaceflight associated neuro-ocular syndrome. In stage 2, with the help of an information specialist from Cochrane Canada Francophone, papers were identified through searches of the following databases: ARC, Embase, IeeeXplore, Medline Ovid, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. In stage 3, studies will be selected and assessed using a 3-step process and emerging, refined exclusion criteria. In stage 4, the data will be charted in a table based on parameters required by the CSA and developed using Google spreadsheets for shared access. In stage 5, evidence-based descriptive summaries will be produced for each condition, as well as descriptive analyses of collected data. Finally, in stage 6, the findings will be shared with the CSA to guide the completion of this project. RESULTS: This study was planned in December 2018. Stage 1 has been completed. The initial database search strategy with all target conditions combined identified a total of 10,403 citations to review through title and abstract screening and after duplicate removal. We plan to complete stages 2-6 by the beginning of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will map the literature on the management of 10 priority medical conditions in space. It will also enable us to identify knowledge gaps that must be addressed in future research, ensuring successful and medically safe future missions as humankind embarks upon new frontiers of space exploration. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/24323.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».