Iowa Uniform Crime Report, 2004

The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.

Iowa Uniform Crime Report, 2003

SERIOUS CRIMES: the rate decreased 6.6 percent from 3,669 crimes per 100,000 population in 2002 to the adjusted rate of 3,427 crimes per 100,000 population in 2003. Also known as the Crime Index, serious crimes include the violent crimes of murder, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault and the property crimes of burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft. VIOLENT CRIMES: decreased 5.2 percent from 2002 to 2003, violent crimes dropped from an adjusted rate of 313.8 crimes per 100,000 population reported in 2002 to 297.4 crimes per 100,000 population in 2003. PROPERTY CRIMES: decreased 6.7 percent from an adjusted rate of 3,355 crimes per 100,000 population in 2002 to 3,131 crimes reported in 2003.

Iowa Uniform Crime Report, 2005

The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.

Iowa Uniform Crime Report, 2006

The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.

Iowa Uniform Crime Report, 2007

The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.

Understanding and Fighting the Medicine Counterfeit Market

Medicine counterfeiting is a serious worldwide issue, involving networks of manufacture and distribution that are an integral part of industrialized organized crime. Despite the potentially devastating health repercussions involved, legal sanctions are often inappropriate or simply not applied. The difficulty in agreeing on a definition of counterfeiting, the huge profits made by the counterfeiters and the complexity of the market are the other main reasons for the extent of the phenomenon. Above all, international cooperation is needed to thwart the spread of counterfeiting. Moreover effort is urgently required on the legal, enforcement and scientific levels. Pharmaceutical companies and agencies have developed measures to protect the medicines and allow fast and reliable analysis of the suspect products. Several means, essentially based on chromatography and spectroscopy, are now at the disposal of the analysts to enable the distinction between genuine and counterfeit products. However the determination of the components and the use of analytical data for forensic purposes still constitute a challenge. The aim of this review article is therefore to point out the intricacy of medicine counterfeiting so that a better understanding can provide solutions to fight more efficiently against it.

Variability in urinary oxalate measurements between six international laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Hyperoxaluria is a major risk factor for kidney stone formation. Although urinary oxalate measurement is part of all basic stone risk assessment, there is no standardized method for this measurement. METHODS: Urine samples from 24-h urine collection covering a broad range of oxalate concentrations were aliquoted and sent, in duplicates, to six blinded international laboratories for oxalate, sodium and creatinine measurement. In a second set of experiments, ten pairs of native urine and urine spiked with 10 mg/L of oxalate were sent for oxalate measurement. Three laboratories used a commercially available oxalate oxidase kit, two laboratories used a high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)-based method and one laboratory used both methods. RESULTS: Intra-laboratory reliability for oxalate measurement expressed as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) varied between 0.808 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.427-0.948] and 0.998 (95% CI: 0.994-1.000), with lower values for HPLC-based methods. Acidification of urine samples prior to analysis led to significantly higher oxalate concentrations. ICC for inter-laboratory reliability varied between 0.745 (95% CI: 0.468-0.890) and 0.986 (95% CI: 0.967-0.995). Recovery of the 10 mg/L oxalate-spiked samples varied between 8.7 ± 2.3 and 10.7 ± 0.5 mg/L. Overall, HPLC-based methods showed more variability compared to the oxalate oxidase kit-based methods. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability was noted in the quantification of urinary oxalate concentration by different laboratories, which may partially explain the differences of hyperoxaluria prevalence reported in the literature. Our data stress the need for a standardization of the method of oxalate measurement.