In December of 2004 the Directorate General for Research and Technological Development (DG RTD) of the European Commission (EC) set up a High-Level Expert Group to propose a series of measures to stimulate the reporting of Intellectual Capital in research intensive Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The Expert Group has focused on enterprises that either perform Research and Development (R&D), or use the results of R&D to innovate and has also considered the implications for the specialist R&D units of larger enterprises, dedicated Research & Technology Organizations and Universities. In this report the Expert Group presents its findings, leading to six recommendations to stimulate the reporting of Intellectual Capital in SMEs by raising awareness, improving reporting competencies, promoting the use of IC Reporting and facilitating standardization.
DOCUMENT
Although the prevalence of cybercrime has increased rapidly, most victims do not report these offenses to the police. This is the first study that compares associations between victim characteristics and crime reporting behavior for traditional crimes versus cybercrimes. Data from four waves of a Dutch cross-sectional population survey are used (N = 97,186 victims). Results show that cybercrimes are among the least reported types of crime. Moreover, the determinants of crime reporting differ between traditional crimes and cybercrimes, between different types of cybercrime (that is, identity theft, consumer fraud, hacking), and between reporting cybercrimes to the police and to other organizations. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818773610 This article is honored with the European Society of Criminology (ESC) Award for the “Best Article of the Year 2019”. Dit artikel is bekroond met de European Society of Criminology (ESC) Award for the “Best Article of the Year 2019”.
MULTIFILE
The Junior Adverse Drug Event Manager (J-ADEM) team is a multifaceted intervention focusing on real-life education for medical students that has been shown to assist healthcare professionals in managing and reporting suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. The aim of this study was to quantify and describe the ADRs reported by the J-ADEM team and to determine the clinical potential of this approach. The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. All ADRs screened and reported by J-ADEM team were recorded anonymously, and categorized and analysed descriptively. From August 2018 through January 2020, 209 patients on two wards in an academic hospital were screened for ADR events. The J-ADEM team reported 101 ADRs. Although most ADRs (67%) were first identified by healthcare professionals and then reported by the J-ADEM team, the team also reported an additional 33 not previously identified serious ADRs. In 10% of all reported ADRs, the J-ADEM team helped optimize ADR treatment. The ADR reports were largely well-documented (78%), and ADRs were classified as type A (66%), had a moderate or severe severity (85%) and were predominantly avoidable reactions (69%). This study shows that medical students are able to screen patients for ADRs, can identify previously undetected ADRs and can help optimize ADR management. They significantly increased (by 300%) the number of ADR reports submitted, showing that the J-ADEM team can make a valuable clinical contribution to hospital care.
MULTIFILE
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.
DOCUMENT
Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.
DOCUMENT
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20250619194946164936.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
This study systematically evaluates greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting practices of European airline groups, covering both mandatory and voluntary key performance indicators (KPIs) under evolving regulatory frameworks. By analysing annual and sustainability reports from 16 major airline groups, the research identifies significant progress in the reporting of core metrics, with Scope 1 CO2 totals reported by 94 % and emissions intensity by 88 %, reflecting growing regulatory alignment and stakeholder expectations. However, persistent gaps remain: Scope 2 and Scope 3 reporting appears in only 56 % and 50 % of cases, respectively, while non-CO2 emissions are disclosed by just 38 %, despite forthcoming European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) monitoring requirements. Reporting on sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) life-cycle emissions is limited (19 %), and CO2 offsetting disclosures are rare (6 %), complicating verification of decarbonisation claims and readiness for ReFuelEU Aviation and Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The proliferation of voluntary KPI disclosures further complicates comparability due to a lack of standardization and clear definitions. These challenges are compounded by risks of greenwashing, where airlines selectively report favourable data such as emissions intensity, and greenhushing, where substantive achievements are under-communicated. The study concludes that while regulatory frameworks such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the EU ETS, CORSIA, and ReFuelEU are driving improvements, further harmonization and methodological clarity are required to ensure transparency, comparability, and genuine progress toward aviation's climate goals.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Managing adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is a challenge, especially because most healthcare professionals are insufficiently trained for this task. Since context-based clinical pharmacovigilance training has proven effective, we assessed the feasibility and effect of a creating a team of Junior-Adverse Drug Event Managers (J-ADEMs). The J-ADEM team consisted of medical students (1st–6th year) tasked with managing and reporting ADRs in hospitalized patients. Feasibility was evaluated using questionnaires. Student competence in reporting ADRs was evaluated using a case-control design and questionnaires before and after J-ADEM program participation. From Augustus 2018 to Augustus 2019, 41 students participated in a J-ADEM team and screened 136 patients and submitted 65 ADRs reports to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb. Almost all patients (n = 61) found it important that “their” ADR was reported, and all (n = 62) patients felt they were taken seriously by the J-ADEM team. Although attending physicians agreed that the ADRs should have been reported, they did not do so themselves mainly because of a “lack of knowledge and attitudes” (50%) and “excuses made by healthcare professionals” (49%). J-ADEM team students were significantly more competent than control students in managing ADRs and correctly applying all steps for diagnosing ADRs (control group 38.5% vs. intervention group 83.3%, p < 0.001). The J-ADEM team is a feasible approach for detecting and managing ADRs in hospital. Patients were satisfied with the care provided, physicians were supported in their ADR reporting obligations, and students acquired relevant basic and clinical pharmacovigilance skills and knowledge, making it a win-win-win intervention.
MULTIFILE
To assess the reporting quality of interventions aiming at promoting physical activity (PA) using a wearable activity tracker (WAT) in patients with infammatory arthritis (IA) or hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA). A systematic search was performed in eight databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2000 and 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics and the reporting of the PA intervention using a WAT using the Consensus on Exercise reporting Template (CERT) (12 items) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) E-Health checklist (16 items). The reporting quality of each study was expressed as a percentage of reported items of the total CERT and CONSORT E-Health (50% or less=poor; 51–79%=moderate; and 80–100%=good reporting quality). Sixteen studies were included; three involved patients with IA and 13 with OA. Reporting quality was poor in 6/16 studies and moderate in 10/16 studies, according to the CERT and poor in 8/16 and moderate in 8/16 studies following the CONSORT E-Health checklist. Poorly reported checklist items included: the description of decision rule(s) for determining progression and the starting level, the number of adverse events and how adherence or fdelity was assessed. In clinical trials on PA interventions using a WAT in patients with IA or OA, the reporting quality of delivery process is moderate to poor. The poor reporting quality of the progression and tailoring of the PA programs makes replication difcult. Improvements in reporting quality are necessary.
DOCUMENT
Given the unpleasant nature of social isolation and loneliness (SIL) and their negative effects on health and wellbeing, interventions are needed. However, persistent issues in the design, evaluation, and reporting of SIL interventions preclude conclusive evidence and commentary on the effectiveness of SIL interventions. Here, we propose guidelines for evaluating SIL interventions, firstly by operationalising them into two categories: (1) interventions aiming to reduce SIL as a primary outcome and (2) interventions aiming to improve non-SIL outcomes in the lives of individuals experiencing SIL. Secondly, we evaluate instruments for measuring SIL and research designs for studying intervention effectiveness. Thirdly, guidelines for reporting information about the intervention, study design, results, and discussion in SIL intervention studies are presented. These guidelines will help researchers to better and more consistently report on SIL interventions and improve comparability of SIL interventions, ultimately contributing to the improvement of interventions and to the mitigation of SIL.
LINK
Given the unpleasant nature of social isolation and loneliness (SIL) and their negative effects on health and wellbeing, interventions are needed. However, persistent issues in the design, evaluation, and reporting of SIL interventions preclude conclusive evidence and commentary on the effectiveness of SIL interventions. Here, we propose guidelines for evaluating SIL interventions, firstly by operationalising them into two categories: (1) interventions aiming to reduce SIL as a primary outcome and (2) interventions aiming to improve non-SIL outcomes in the lives of individuals experiencing SIL. Secondly, we evaluate instruments for measuring SIL and research designs for studying intervention effectiveness. Thirdly, guidelines for reporting information about the intervention, study design, results, and discussion in SIL intervention studies are presented. These guidelines will help researchers to better and more consistently report on SIL interventions and improve comparability of SIL interventions, ultimately contributing to the improvement of interventions and to the mitigation of SIL.
LINK
