Systematic reviews rate the quality of primary research. Those coducting primary research may find it useful to use the quality scoring tools when planning experimental studies, so they can be confident of their studies being considering high quality later. The minimum quality checks a review should do is risk of bias, but they may also assess the quality of spaceflight simulation environments.

This is where systematic reviews have found a lack of data on a particular topic. As the most thorough, repeatable and updatable search method, systematic reviews can authoritatively show where gaps exist. This can be used to prioritise primary research resources and reduce waste. Many funding organisations expect a systematic review of a topic before agreeing to fund it.

All research should aim to have some impact in the real world - this means resulting in some type of change. For space medicine reviews, this might be new understanding of the evidence base, new review methods, gap analysis or changes to operational medical practice. The systematic review group as an over-arching body can identify themes coming up across the systematic reviews we are aware of in this field. This enables important messages that review teams raise to be flagged up clearly at a higher level to help bring change and have impact.