Submited on: 08 Mar 2014 08:39:00 PM GMT
Published on: 10 Mar 2014 05:16:35 AM GMT
Radiation docimetry in space: A systematic review
Posted by Dr. Barbara J Polivka on 18 Apr 2014 03:54:27 PM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This manuscript reviews 43 articles that included radiation dose measurement in space over the past 50 years. A thorough literature search was done using Medline and Google Scholar. The articles were all in English, the first authors were from 10 countries, and both passive and active measurement methods were used. There is a lack of peer-reviewed literature based on Soviet/Russian experiences. This systematic review does provide an overview of the variety of extraterrestrial experiences in which radiation dose was measured, the methods of measurement, and the fact that early on the findings from radiation dose measurements were reported in internal NASA documents. This information is very useful for researchers focused on the human impact of exposure to space radiation.

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The information presented in this systematic review is novel, clearly written, well presented.

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The introduction highlights the lack of systematic reviews of literature in this area. This manuscript fills this gap.

  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The process used to determine which articles to include/exclude is clearly presented. The flowchart (Figure 1) is straightforward. The only process not clearly explained is how the radiation safety expert determined which articles were of low quality. This was vague and it is possible that some articles deemed of low quality by this expert could be considered of adequate quality by another expert. Therefore, there could well be other literature that should be considered.

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    The protocol for identifying articles to include in this review was clearly presented with the exception identified above.

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    The methodology followed is consistent with standard methodology for identifying relevant peer reviewed articles in a systematic review. Again, the issue of the 'low quality' articles remain. The process is repeatable with this one exception.

  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    It would be helpful to also have a collaborator who could search the Eastern European literature to determine any other peer-reviewed articles published in those countries. Given the number of non-USA authors interested in this topic, that should not be too difficult to do.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This is a good example of a systematic review and the results are interesting and offer an overview of how and where these data were collected. What is not presented are the doce results. It's unclear if there is another manuscript that actually presents the extent of radiation exposure in space.

  • Other Comments:


  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:


  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have done systematic reviews. This is not a technical article.

  • How to cite:  Polivka B J.Radiation docimetry in space: A systematic review[Review of the article 'Radiation Dosimetry in Space: A Systematic Review ' by Rahbar M].WebmedCentral 2014;5(4):WMCRW003035
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse