scholarly journals Consumer Response to Standardized Tobacco Packaging in the United Kingdom: A Synthesis of Evidence from Two Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 14 ◽  
pp. 1465-1480
Author(s):  
Crawford Moodie ◽  
Kathryn Angus ◽  
Martine Stead
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Consumer Response ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Tobacco Packaging

scholarly journals Pension Freedom Day in the United Kingdom: Early evaluation of consumer response

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Cäzilia Loibl ◽  
Barbara Summers ◽  
Simon McNair ◽  
Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Consumer Response ◽  
Early Evaluation ◽  
The United Kingdom

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: Value, content, and developments

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 470-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison M. Booth ◽  
Kath E. Wright ◽  
Helen Outhwaite
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Free Access ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Importance ◽  
Comprehensive Listing ◽  
Pubmed Search

Background: The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) funded through the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research undertakes systematic reviews evaluating the research evidence on health and public health questions of national and international importance. CRD is involved in methods research and produces internationally accepted guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. A core product of the Centre are the CRD databases; a key resource for health professionals, policy makers, and researchers around the world. Research evidence evaluating the effects and cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions is growing year on year, and can be difficult and time consuming to identify and appraise. The databases assist decision makers by systematically identifying and critically describing systematic reviews and economic evaluations, appraising their quality and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses; and providing a comprehensive listing of ongoing and published health technology assessments.Methods and Results: This article briefly outlines the processes behind each of the three databases, gives details of the records, the information they contain and the value added by CRD. An overview of the new public interface for the CRD databases to be launched later this year is given. Improvements and innovations to supplement existing functions are listed, including enhanced and new search options, the addition of quick links to relevant material from within individual records, an integrated PubMed search and the ability to select personal preferences.Conclusions: CRD's databases provide free access to an important knowledge base and are used widely to underpin evidence informed healthcare decisions in the United Kingdom and internationally.

scholarly journals PP024 Changes In Reporting Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews For The United Kingdom

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 80-81
Author(s):  
Eva Kaltenthaler ◽  
Christopher Carroll
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Complete Reporting

INTRODUCTION:A recent publication reported that increasing numbers of systematic reviews are being published and, although standards have improved, many are still poorly conducted and reported, especially non-Cochrane systematic reviews (1). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews undertaken for the United Kingdom (UK) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and published in the International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (2) and compare those undertaken in 2004 and 2014.METHODS:A comparative sample of all systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 in the UK HTA monograph series was identified by a structured search of MEDLINE in August 2016. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data. These data were tabulated and summarized.RESULTS:The search identified twenty-three systematic reviews from 2004 and thirty from 2014. By 2014, compared with 2004, a smaller proportion of treatment (53 percent versus 70 percent) and pharmaceutical (20 percent versus 57 percent) reviews were being published. In 2014, there were much higher percentages of review registrations (70 percent versus 0 percent) and available protocols (90 percent versus 17 percent); increased explicit inclusion of unpublished literature (65 percent versus 39 percent); less frequent use of local checklists (32 percent versus 61 percent) for critical appraisal; more complete reporting of study flow for inclusion (97 percent versus 57 percent) and exclusion (91 percent and 65 percent) of studies; and there were more reviews reporting limitations affecting the review itself (73 percent versus 49 percent). The process had clearly become more reflective and rigorous. However, some previous weaknesses persisted, including the general absence of any assessment of publication bias and the failure to report overall numbers of patients in the review.CONCLUSIONS:Marked improvements can be seen in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews published by the UK HTA programme as a result of the publication and general acceptance of the PRISMA statement (3) and the increased application of a smaller number of relevant standards.

VP15 A Comparison Of Reporting In United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment And Other Systematic Reviews

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 152-153
Author(s):  
Christopher Carroll ◽  
Eva Kaltenthaler
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Specific Policy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Standards Of Conduct

INTRODUCTION:A recent study claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly conducted and reported (1). The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards in systematic reviews published in 2014 in the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment (UK HTA) monograph series compared with the reporting in Cochrane and other “non-Cochrane” systematic reviews from the same year, as reported by Page et al. (1).METHODS:All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and “non-Cochrane" systematic reviews from 2014, as published by Page et al. (1). All data were tabulated and summarized.RESULTS:There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). Fewer UK HTA reviews covered therapeutic and pharmaceutical topics (53 percent and 20 percent respectively) than Cochrane (100 percent and 51 percent). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews: for example, availability of protocols (90 percent, 98 percent and 16 percent respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100 percent, 100 percent, 79 percent); the reporting of outcomes (100 percent, 100 percent, 78 percent), quality assessment (100 percent, 100 percent, 70 percent) and other processes; the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70 percent, 62 percent, 19 percent); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91 percent, 91 percent and 70 percent) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interest (100 percent, 100 percent, 87 percent). However, HTA reviews compare less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in the assessment of publication bias and reporting overall numbers of patients in the review.CONCLUSIONS:UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context and cover a greater variety of topics than Cochrane reviews. This has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, they still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to “gold standard” Cochrane reviews and are superior to systematic reviews more generally.

scholarly journals Introduction of Standardized Tobacco Packaging During a 12-Month Transition Period: Findings From Small Retailers in the United Kingdom

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 871-878 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Critchlow ◽  
Martine Stead ◽  
Crawford Moodie ◽  
Douglas Eadie ◽  
Anne Marie MacKintosh
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Tobacco Packaging

A comparison of the United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UK-CAT) with a traditional admission selection process

2009 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishan Fernando ◽  
Gordon Prescott ◽  
Jennifer Cleland ◽  
Kathryn Greaves ◽  
Hamish McKenzie
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Aptitude Test ◽  
The United Kingdom

Research on Schizophrenia: A View From the United Kingdom

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 800-801
Author(s):  
Michael F. Pogue-Geile
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, Employed Women Have Problems, Too

1992 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 1076-1077
Author(s):  
Barbara A. Gutek
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Employed Women
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document