Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

STECF Evaluation of Fisheries Dependent Information (STECF-15-12)

STEC

STECF Fisheries Dependent Information – FDI (STECF-19-11)

Commission Decision of 25 February 2016 setting up a Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, C(2016) 1084, OJ C 74, 26.2.2016, p. 4–10. The Commission may consult the group on any matter relating to marine and fisheries biology, fishing gear technology, fisheries economics, fisheries governance, ecosystem effects of fisheries, aquaculture or similar disciplines. The STECF reviewed the report of the EWG on Fisheries-dependent Information during its winter 2019 plenary meeting

Report of the Working Group on Commercial Catches (WGCATCH)

The Working Group on Commercial Catches (WGCATCH), chaired by Mike Arm- strong (UK) and Hans Gerritsen (Ireland), met in ICES HQ, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10–14 November 2014. The meeting was attended by 34 experts from 21 laboratories or organizations, covering 16 countries. Currently, an important task for WGCATCH is to improve and review sampling sur- vey designs for commercial fisheries, particularly those for estimating quantities and size or age compositions of landings and discards and providing data quality indica- tors. However, the scope of WGCATCH is broader than this, covering many other aspects of collection and analysis of data on fishing activities and catches. This will be end-user driven, and coordinated with the work of other ICES data EGs such as the Working Group on Biological Parameters (WGBIOP), the Planning Group on Data Needs for Assessments and Advice (PGDATA) and the Working Group on Recrea- tional Fisheries Surveys (WGRFS) to ensure synergy and efficiency. The report of the meeting commences with background information on the formation of WGCATCH and its overall role. The remainder of the report provides the out- comes for each of the Terms of Reference (ToRs) and responses to external requests, the proposed future work plan and the ToRs for the 2015 meeting. The group formed two large subgroups to deal with the two major terms of reference which are the development of guidelines for carrying out sampling of catches on shore and the provision of advice on adapting sampling programmes to deal with the landing obligation. In order to evaluate methods and develop guidelines for best practice in carrying out sampling of commercial sampling of commercial fish catches onshore, a question- naire was circulated before the meeting. This questionnaire was structured around guidelines developed by the ICES Workshop on Practical Implementation of Statisti- cally Sound Catch Sampling Programmes (WKPICS) for best practice at each stage of the sampling process, and asked for a description of current practices at each of these stages. Based on these questionnaires, common and specific problems were cata- logued and potential solutions were identified. At the same time, the discussion of the questionnaires provided a form of peer-review of the sampling designs and iden- tified where improvements could be made. WGCATCH provided guidelines for de- signing a sampling survey and summarized earlier guidelines provided by the 2010 Workshop on methods for merging métiers for fishery based sampling (WKMERGE) The other main subject addressed by WGCATCH concerns the provision of advice on adapting sampling protocols to deal with the impact of the introduction of the land- ing obligation, which will alter discarding practices and result in additional catego- ries of catch being landed. A second questionnaire was circulated before the meeting to allow the group to identify the fleets that will be affected and possible issues that are anticipated, as well as to propose solutions to adapt existing monitoring and sampling schemes and to quantify bias resulting from the introduction of this regula- tion. WGCATCH outlined a range of likely scenarios and the expected effects of these on fishery sampling programmes, and developed guidelines for adapting sam- pling schemes. The group also explored a range of analyses that could be conducted in order to quantify bias resulting from the introduction of the landing obligation. Finally a number of pilot studies/case studies were summarized, highlighting the practical issues involve

Report of the Regional Co-ordination Meeting for the North Sea and Eastern Arctic (RCM NS&EA) 2015

The RCM NS&EA met 31st August - 4th September 2015 at den Haag, Netherlands with 27 participants form 11 member states and autonomous regions attending, including representatives of ICES and the Commission. National correspondents from Spain, UK, Denmark, Lithuania, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands were present. The meeting was co-chaired by Katja Ringdahl (Sweden) and Alastair Pout (Scotland). The RCM N&SEA considered the recommendations from the 11th Liasion meeting and summaries were presented of the work of expert groups and end users for the 2014-15 period to the plenary session of the meeting. The expert groups included WGCATCH, PGDATA, WKISCON2, WKRDB 2014-01, RDB–SC, STECF and the Zagreb meeting on transversal variables. ICES, as a main end user, provided feedback. A summary was presented of the progress in the regional coordination project (fishPi). This project involves over 40 participants from 12 members states from NS&EA, NA and Baltic regions, two external statistical experts, and ICES. The project has a wide scope of regional cooperation issues including sampling designs, data formats, code lists, PETS, stomach sampling, small scale and recreational sampling, and data quality software production. It has a budget of €400,000, and a one year time line and with a planned completion date of April 2016. A project with identical aims is running in paralleled in the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions The majority of the ToRs of the RCM NS&EA were addressed by three subgroups: one concerned with data analysis, one with the landing obligation, and one with issues particularly related to role and work of national correspondents