Discarding of cod in the Danish Fully Documented Fisheries trials

Denmark was the first nation in Europe to promote the use of Fully Documented Fisheries (FDF) through Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) and CCTV camera systems, with pilot schemes in place since 2008. In theory, such a scheme could supplement and even potentially replace expensive control and monitoring programmes; and when associated with a catch quota management (CQM) system, incentivize positive changes in fishing patterns in a results-based management approach. New data flows are, however, required to ensure the practical implementation of such a scheme. This paper reviews the quality of the FDF data collected during 2008-2014 and their potential in strengthening information on cod discards. The analyses demonstrate the improved reporting of discards in logbooks and overall discard reductions, but they also show that some uncertainties around the absolute estimates of discard quantities have remained. Regular validation of weight estimation methods and close collaboration between scientific monitoring and control are important to support the use of reported discards as a reliable source of information. We discuss the potential of electronic monitoring in the context of the EU landing obligation

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]