Longitudinal criminological studies greatly improved our understanding of the longitudinal patterns of criminality. These studies, however, focused almost exclusively on traditional types of offending and it is therefore unclear whether results are generalizable to online types of offending. This study attempted to identify the developmental trajectories of active hackers who perform web defacements. The data for this study consisted of 2,745,311 attacks performed by 66,553 hackers and reported to Zone-H between January 2010 and March 2017. Semi-parametric group-based trajectory models were used to distinguish six different groups of hackers based on the timing and frequency of their defacements. The results demonstrated some common relationships to traditional types of crime, as a small population of defacers accounted for the majority of defacements against websites. Additionally, the methods and targeting practices of defacers differed based on the frequency with which they performed defacements generally.
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
