Where and how to find data on safety: what do systematic reviews of complementary therapies tell us?

Background: Successfully identifying relevant data for systematic reviews with a focus on safety may require retrieving information from a wider range of sources than for ‘effectiveness’ systematic reviews. Searching for safety data continues to prove a major challenge. Objectives: To examine search methods used in systematic reviews of safety and to investigate indexing. Methods: Systematic reviews focusing on safety of complementary therapies and related interventions were retrieved from comprehensive searches of major databases. Data was extracted on search strategies, sources used and indexing in major databases. Safety related search terms were compared against index terms available on major databases. Data extraction by one researcher using a pre-prepared template was checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Results: Screening of 2563 records resulted in 88 systematic reviews being identified. Information sources used varied with the type of intervention being addressed. Comparison of search terms with available index terms revealed additional potentially relevant terms that could be used in constructing search strategies. Seventy-nine reviews were indexed on PubMed, 84 on EMBASE, 21 on CINAHL, 15 on AMED, 6 on PsycINFO, 2 on BNI and HMIC. The mean number of generic safety-related indexing terms on PubMed records was 2.6. For EMBASE the mean number was 4.8 with at least 61 unique terms being employed. Most frequently used indexing terms and subheadings were adverse effects, side effects, drug interactions and herb-drug interactions. Use of terms specifically referring to safety varied across databases. Conclusions: Investigation of search methods revealed the range of information sources used, a list of which may prove a valuable resource for those planning to conduct systematic reviews of safety. The findings also indicated that there is potential to improve safety-related search strategies. Finally, an insight is provided into indexing of and most effective terms for finding safety studies on major databases.

A framework for evaluating the European airline costs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility

In recent years, airlines have been servicing a greater variety, and increasing numbers, of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility (PRMs), particularly associated with ageing, obesity and medical needs. With the quantity of PRMs likely to increase in the future, there will be a growing impact on the airlines' associated actual and opportunity costs, about which there is minimal literature and data. Therefore the aim of this paper is to identify standard functional key factors (FKFs) with which airlines could audit their PRMs costs, and which could be used by other interested bodies, such as governments, when considering relevant aviation policy. These FKFs are related to nine areas, namely PRMs’ transfers; mobility aids; aircraft delays/diversions costs; staff training costs; staff health, safety and welfare; aircraft fixtures and equipment costs; airport costs; transaction costs; and opportunity costs. Further research is needed to obtain the data for these FKFs.

ADR in aviation: European and national perspectives

The air transport sector generates the largest share of cross-border consumer complaints, as a proportion of complaints received by the ECC-Net. Since the foundation of the ECC-Net in 2005, air passenger claims have made up around one fifth of the total caseload most years. A pan-European framework of bodies that handle consumer to business disputes will be implemented through the consumer ADR directive.4 Taking these developments into consideration, the aviation industry is an interesting sector to study. This paper looks at dispute resolution for air passengers in the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany, as well as at European level.