Cochrane Steering Group Minutes 5 Oct 94

Steering Group Minutes
Steering group minutes, Wednesday 5 Oct. 1994, Hamilton, Canada

Present: Hilda Bastian (HB), Iain Chalmers (IC), Carl Counsell (CC), Kay Dickersin (KD), Peter Gotzsche (PG), Brian Haynes (BH), Andy Oxman (AO), David Sackett (DS), Chris Silagy (CS), Valter Torri (VT).

Apologies: Ajell Asplund, Alessandro Liberati.

Notes: Sally Hunt

I Cochrane Reviews

1a Review Manager

Monica Fischer, Mark Starr and AO have met and drafted a plan for software development next year. They plan to meet again in November to discuss this further, co-opting a representative of a CRG may help with this. CS suggested that RevMan should help reviewers and editors to observe the cautions urged in the Tool Kit.

Action: M Fischer, M Starr, AO

1b Module Manager And Parent Database

Following a discussion the SG recommended that module administrators should meet in Oxford, to discuss the output and development of a module management system. This is dependent on funding being available.

The SG discussed the content of a Cochrane Review and in principle, agreed to recommend a modification to the format. This modification is for submission to the business meeting for further discussion and approval. The proposal is, to separate the evidence from the section, 'Conclusions: Implications for Practice and Implications for Research'. Space should be available for those with differing perspectives to add their comments. By putting a review on the Internet it is possible to include the conclusions, added later by others, including Fields. The SG discussed establishing a Peer review process to add value to the basic work. The later process of editing 'Conclusions and Implications for Practice and Research' should not hold up the review.

Action: IC

1c Cochrane Database Of Systematic Reviews

i On disc/disk

ii On the Internet

CS would like to see specialised databases on disk. IC reported that a prototype of CDSR on CD is being produced by Mark Starr for release in December 1994. The formal release of CDSR will be in spring 1995. It is hoped that reviews will be available both on the Internet and on disk. The Internet poses some technical challenges as RevMan does not print out in a format that is easily transferable to the Internet. The Software Development Group will discuss ways of modifying the format. KD emphasised the need to have CDSR available on floppy disks. IC agreed that the UKCC will underwrite the cost of the prototype disk demonstrations within the UK. BH will receive a copy of the prototype to make preparations for Internet dissemination.

Action: IC, BH

1d Orphan Reviews

BH explained that some reviewers are not registered with CRGs, and he would like to encourage them to produce reviews in the Cochrane format. AO suggested it may be possible to find a 'home' for these reviews. Expanding the scope of the CRGs to include these reviews is one possible method. Reviewers should ideally, be kept within CRGs but there is a need to strike a balance for those with enthusiasm who want to get started.

Action: AO, BH

II 1995 Edition Of The Handbook

The following have agreed to be responsible for sections on the handbook, with AO as Managing Editor.

i Section I Dave Sackett

ii Section 2 Paul Garner

iii Section 3 Chris Silagy

iv Section 4 Peter Gotzsche

v Section 5 Kay Dickersin

vi Section 6 Andy Oxman with assistance from Methods Groups

AO will contact each editor in November and give them a deadline for their section. HB agreed to look at each section to ensure that the Handbook includes appropriate references to consumer involvement. AO will explore how to make formatting easier for the hypertext version. Each revision must have a date and a highlighted 'what's new' section. AO will look at the standard way of referencing the Handbook.

Action: AO, HB

III Communication

CS proposed that everyone wishing to register with the Collaboration be assigned to a reference Cochrane Centre. This needs managing centrally. CS will talk to Rob Hayward to work out the technical aspects of taking this forward. The UKCC will maintain the directories of contacts until the end of the year; after that CS will manage them at the Australian Centre. IC and CS will meet shortly to discuss this.

Action: IC, CS

CS will continue to produce the Cochrane Collaboration Newsletter and he asked for prompt delivery of material for publishing. Excerpts from CRGs newsletters are welcome for inclusion. CS will issue a list of deadlines of forthcoming newsletters to Centres and other entities. Every Centre will receive a newsletter on disk for them to publish and disseminate to their reference countries.

Action: CS,

IV Territorial Responsibilities For Each Cochrane Centre

There was a discussion of the list of countries each Centre will have responsibility for. DS will assign newly presented countries not on the list to a Centre. IC would like to write to all the existing contacts and advise them of their reference Centre.

Action: DS, IC

V Steering Group Composition And Incorporation

The SG discussed the spectrum of people that could make up the Steering Group. The list of possibilities is as follows:

i Centres

ii CRGs

iii Fields

iv Consumers

v Health Policy Network

vi Policy Makers

vii Funders

viii Administrators - Centres and Review Groups

ix Executive Officer.

HB circulated a paper describing the Consumer Network and how it relates to the Collaboration. There was agreement that the Collaboration should insist that every CRG has consumer representation. Hilda will circulate her report to the Steering Group. An agenda item for the next Steering Group and business meeting should be a forum for consumers.

Action: HB

It was suggested that an assembly of each type of Cochrane entity could discuss the best ways for their interests to be represented on the SG. The SG must have good representation to guide and lead discussion about particular needs. The business meeting is an important forum to put forward views. There was agreement that at the Oslo Colloquium there was a need for a half day meeting for each assembly. Feedback from these meetings will identify matters for the SG to address.

AO introduced a model for the representation on the new SG:

Entity Current Position Population Proposed

Centres 6 6 6

CRGs 1 10 3

Fields 1 1 1

Consumer Network 1 4,000,000,000 3

User Groups 0 ? 1

Methods Groups 1 10 1

Chair 1 1 1

DS, KD & HB agreed to seek further advice about how to devlop the organisation to cope with the anticipated rapid growth. Members of the SG were asked to think about the issues and feedback any comments to DS.

Action: DS, KD, HB

VI Oslo Colloquium 1995

Feedback from the 1994 Colloquium indicates that the organisation and content were generally well received. BH will do further analysis on the feedback forms.

Action: BH

It was suggested that priority registration is given to members of registered and about to be registered entities attending the Oslo Colloquium. IC stated that colloquia should focus on groups already registered, and should not be a "learning about the Collaboration event".

AO suggested a possible format for events at Oslo

i Plenary session at the beginning

ii am: Presentations and Posters

iii pm: Workshops

iv Half day assemblies

Those responsible for a specific area should organise their own plenary session. A session should last no longer than 1.5 hours.

Action: AO

HB & CS asked that the cost implication for some groups be noted as it may be prohibitively expensive.

CS agreed to chair a sub-group comprising DS & KD to discuss future Colloquia. A suggestion was made that the 1996 Colloquium be in the Southern hemisphere. An executive group should examine Australia and its geographical area as a possible venue. Registration fees need structuring to encourage as many people as possible to attend. Cheaper accommodation and simpler social functions would help to minimise the cost.

Action: CS, DS, KD

A suggestion was made that each centre could fund a representative from the Third World, and it would be important to keep in touch with Juan Lozano. Funds may be available through the Archie Cochrane Trust when this becomes available.

Action: SG

DS will write to Tom Chalmers asking for suggestions for ephemera for the prize won at this colloquium by Peter Sandercock et al for the best paper at the Scientific session.

Action: DS

VII Conflict And Non-production Resolution

IC & DS reported on the problems experienced in organising a meeting of people interested in systematic reviews of a specific problem. This has resulted in people feeling excluded, and the exclusion of an important member of the organising research team from a proposed editorial group. It was agreed that prospective groups should be guided by the criteria for establishing a CRG, which are listed in the handbook. It may be that the criteria need reviewing. It is important that someone from the nearest Cochrane Centre attends an exploratory meeting.

This experience highlights the difficulties faced by the SG when assessing the suitability of potential CRGs applying to join the Collaboration. In this case it appears that the Collaboration criteria were not observed. It was agreed that DS would write to the convenor to pre-empt the proposal, and suggest the possibility of appointing an ombudsman if necessary.

Action: DS

The issue of how to deal with a management type of group (one that cuts across other specialities) was discussed. It was agreed that a proposal is drafted and sent to all entities and nearly registered entities explaining how to deal with this issue. It was suggested that an appeal mechanism could be established if the SG turns down a proposal.

A currently registered group was discussed and the problem that inaction from the editorial office is making some reviewers feel excluded. It was agreed that the director of the relevant Cochrane centre was already involved and would continue to monitor the situation.

It may be appropriate to establish more formal rules and to question the editorial teams of CRGs at the Colloquium. It should not be dependent on particular people to lead CRGs.

Action: DS

VIII New Centres, Groups And Fields

The proposal to establish a new Cochrane Centre in the Netherlands was agreed. Its specialist interest is placebos, as well as taking on the general responsibilities of a centre as outlined in the Handbook. Approval was faxed to Jos Kleijnen, the proposed Director.

The proposal to establish a Cochrane Centre in San Francisco was discussed, and approval withheld until more information is available. The SG need to know more as regards other responsibilities within the Collaboration and the interaction with the Baltimore Centre. DS agreed to write to the applicants with a request to redraft the proposal.

Action: DS

The proposal to establish a CRG in Peripheral Vascular Disease was summarised by IC and approved by the SG.

A proposed field in socio-economic factors was welcomed by the SG. DS will write to the proposer explaining that she needs to define what she plans to do. This was an opportunity to include consumer involvement. They might be better off as a methods group and need guidance about holding an exploratory meeting to discuss these issues.

Action: DS

IX Any Other Business

CS tabled a paper on the approval process for fields, and agreed to circulate it to the members of the SG for comment.

Meeting Closed