Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32655420›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2020

Ground-Based Analogs for Human Spaceflight.

Meenakshi Pandiarajan, Alan R Hargens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Application of Microgravity Experiments in Plastic Surgery: A Literature Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Meenakshi PandiarajanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.
Alan R HargensDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Altman Clinical and Translational Research Institute, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This mini-review provides an updated summary of various analogs for adaptations of humans to the microgravity of space. Microgravity analogs discussed in this paper include dry immersion, wet immersion, unilateral lower-extremity limb suspension, head down tilt (HDT), and supine bed rest. All Earth-based analogs are imperfect simulations of microgravity with their own advantages and disadvantages. This paper compares these five frequently used microgravity analogs to offer insights into their usefulness for various physiological systems. New developments for each human microgravity analog are explored and advantages of one analog are evaluated against other analogs. Furthermore, the newly observed risk of Spaceflight Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome (SANS) is included in this mini review with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each method of simulation for the relatively new risk of SANS. Overall, the best and most integrated analog for Earth-based studies of the microgravity of space flight appears to be head-down tilt bed rest.

Indexed as

bed restdry immersionhead down tiltunilateral lower limb suspensionwet immersion

Identifiers

PMID32655420
PMCPMC7324748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.