Extreme UK rainfall and natural climate variability: combining models and data

The return periods for extreme events are estimated from observational datasets. Often those datasets are relatively short in comparison to timescales of natural climate variability; potentially introducing a systematic bias into the extreme estimates. Here we combine observations with global climate models to show that this bias is statistically insignificant for the case of extreme UK-wide rainfall estimates. This is unlikely to hold for other locations and spatial scales, yet the methodology we have developed provides a simple approach to quantify the bias for other cases

Efficiency, ownership and financial structure in European banking

Purpose – This paper aims to compare the cost efficiencies across bank-and market-based EU countries for the different groups of commercial, savings and co-operative banks; and between listed and non-listed banking institutions. In addition, it attempts to determine any potential implications for bank efficiency originating from differences in financial structure. Design/methodology/approach – Efficiency scores are estimated using the Battese and Coelli's time-varying stochastic frontier approach. The classification of bank- and market-based financial systems is based on the World Bank's Financial Structure Database. Findings – On the whole the results reject the agency theory hypothesis that managers of privately-owned banks are more cost efficient than those of mutual banking institutions because of capital market devices as it is found that mutual banks operating in EU-15 countries are significantly more cost efficient than commercial banks. Furthermore, results are mixed concerning the financial structure hypothesis that in developed financial systems bank efficiency should not be statistically different across bank-vs market-based economies. Research limitations/implications – The analysis suggests that differences in cost efficiency across bank types can often be explained by the prevailing financial system in each economy. Practical implications – The evidence illustrates the national diversity of corporate governance systems in Europe and can be important to policy makers who are concerned with the full integration of the European financial system. Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no previous similar empirical works for the EU banking sector. Such a study has important policy implications especially due to the fact that the EU banking sector is experiencing profound structural changes and a full integration has not yet been achieved

What is the evidence-base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomised controlled trials

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. Whilst many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, an NIHR HTA systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (searched to August 31st 2013 (RCTs) and 31st December 2015 (systematic reviews)). Outcome measures included: symptoms, AE severity, quality-of-life, and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to be low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n= 254), we found ‘reasonable evidence of benefit’ for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair™, ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet light and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of ‘no benefit’ included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for non-infected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) Database

Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema - The GREAT database (The Global Resource of Eczema Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.</p> <p>Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.</p> <p>An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects.</p> <p>Description</p> <p>The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month.</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in <it>The Cochrane Library </it>and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24^thMarch 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions.</p> <p>The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at <url>http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk</url></p

‘Building for the Future?’ Government and Industry Responses to the Challenges of Talent Management in China Following the GFC

China suffered minimal fallout from the global financial crisis due to its burgeoning economy and ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ political strategy. However, despite this, its industries face enormous human resource management (HRM) challenges associated with the country's rapid economic growth. Principal amongst these HRM challenges is the need to attract and retain crucial talent. It is likely that if Chinese industry is unsuccessful in these endeavours, the future economic growth of China may be stalled, resulting in more serious long-term outcomes. This paper explores these challenges together with some possible solutions and future research directions

Research techniques made simple: workflow for searching databases to reduce evidence selection bias in systematic reviews

Clinical trials and basic science studies without statistically significant results are less likely to be published than studies with statistically significant results. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that omit unpublished data are at high risk of distorted conclusions. Here, we describe methods to search beyond bibliographical databases to reduce evidence selection bias in systematic reviews. Unpublished studies may be identified by searching conference proceedings. Moreover, clinical trial registries—databases of planned and ongoing trials—and regulatory agency websites such as the European Medicine Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may provide summaries of efficacy and safety data. Primary and secondary outcomes are prespecified in trial registries, thus allowing the assessment of outcome reporting bias by comparison with the trial report. The sources of trial data and documents are still evolving, with ongoing initiatives promoting broader access to clinical study reports and individual patient data. There is currently no established methodology to ensure that the multiple sources of information are incorporated. Nonetheless, systematic reviews must adapt to these improvements and cover the new sources in their search strategies

Democratizing the Clinical Trials Agenda in Dermatology

The UQ Gatton Past Students' Association Photograph collection consists of digital copies of original photographs donated by past students and staff. The photographs feature the development of UQ Gatton and community under its identities as the Queensland Agricultural College; Queensland Agricultural High School and College; The University of Queensland, Gatton Campus; and UQ Gatton

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background: Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.Objectives: To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.Data sources: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Review methods: Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.Results: Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; and Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing