Minutes of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 April 2007

 

[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 31 May 2007.]

 

Subject

Item no.

Academic vs practical evidence-based health care

35.2; 35.3

[Advisory] Group, Cochrane Library Users’ (CLUG)

20.3

Advisory Group, Colloquium Policy (CPAG)

20.4

Advisory Group, Feedback Management (FMAG)

20.5

Advisory Group, Handbook (HAG)

20.6

[Advisory] Group, Information Management System (IMSG)

20.7

Advisory Group, Quality (QAG)

20.8

Advisory Groups, budget requests for 2007-2008

24.4

Advisory Groups, proposed reporting to the Executive by the

16.1

Bill Silverman Prize, proposal for

28

Budget, proposed Steering Group and Secretariat, for 2007-08

24.3

Budgets, sub- and advisory group requests, for 2007-08

24.4

Campbell Collaboration report

20.9

Carbon footprint, reduction in relation to Cochrane Colloquia

31.2

Cash flow forecast

24.2

CENTRAL, the future of

9

Centre issues

21.4

Chief Executive Officer’s report

4

Co-Chair of the Steering Group [election of]

15

Cochrane Library, publication of The

11

Cochrane Library Users’ Group (CLUG) report

20.3

Cochrane Opportunities Fund

5

Cochrane products (non-scientific), translation of

13

Cochrane Prioritisation Projects Fund

6

Cochrane Review Group (CRG) issues

21.1

Cochrane Review Groups, succession planning for

29

Cochrane reviews, planning for implementation of changes to

8

Colloquia, reducing the carbon footprint of

31.2

Colloquia, dates of future

22.1; 22.3

Colloquia, invitations to host

23.3

Colloquium 2006 in Dublin, lessons learned from webcasting plenary sessions

31.1

Colloquium 2007 in São Paulo

22.1; 23.1

Colloquium 2008 in Freiburg

22.3; 23.2; 35.4

Colloquium 2009 in Singapore

23.3

Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) report

20.4

Commercial sponsorship policy, three-year review of

27

Decision-making, delegated responsibility within The Cochrane Collaboration

16.2

Declarations of interest

2; Appendix 3

Developing Countries Network, funding request from

25.2

Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, progress report

19

Discretionary Fund expenditure

30

Dublin Colloquium, lessons learned from webcasting plenary sessions

31.1

Editorial board, proposal for an

10; Appendix 1

Elections to the Steering Group in 2007

35.1

Entities bidding for funds in open competition

25.1.2

Entities, financial income to and distribution across

25.1

Environmental sustainability

31

Evidence-based health care, academic versus practical

35.2; 35.3

Executive Group, delegating decision-making responsibility to

16.2

Executive Group, proposed expanded remit for the

16

Executive Group, proposed reporting to, by Advisory Groups

16.1

Feedback Management Advisory Group (FMAG) report

20.5

Field/Network issues

21.3

Financial income to entities

25.1

Financial position and cash flow forecast

5.2

Financial status of the Collaboration and of Cochrane entities

25

Five-year review of the Steering Group

14;35.5;Appendix 2

Freiburg Colloquium 2008

23.2; 35.4

Funding of and across entities

25.1

Funding request, Cochrane Developing Countries Network

25.2

Funding to support multiple entities

25.1.3

Handbook Advisory Group (HAG) report

20.6

Implementation of changes to Cochrane reviews, planning for (and training)

8

Information Management System Group (IMSG) report

20.7

Management Plan, Strategic Plan and

separate document

Methods Group issues

21.2

Mid-year Steering Group meeting, Vellore, 2008

22.2

Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG) report

20.2

Opportunities Fund

5; 25.1.2; 25.1.3

Prioritisation Projects Fund

6; 25.1.3

Prize, proposal for Bill Silverman

28

Publication of The Cochrane Library (Wiley report)

11

Publishing Policy Group (PPG) report

20.1

Quality Advisory Group (QAG) report

20.8

Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies progress report

19

Review of commercial sponsorship policy (three-year)

27

Review of the Collaboration, Strategic

17

Review of the Steering Group, five-year

14;35.5;Appendix 2

RevMan 5, status of and release plans

7

RevMan 5, training for (implementation of changes to Cochrane Reviews)

8

São Paulo Colloquium and Steering Group meeting, 2007

22.1; 23.1

Secretariat and Steering Group budget 2007-2008

24.3

Silverman, Bill, proposal for a prize

28

Singapore, invitation to host the 2009 Colloquium in

23.3

Sponsorship policy (commercial): three-year review

27

Spreadsheet of current financial position and cash flow forecast

24

Spreadsheet of outstanding action items

33

Steering Group and Secretariat budget 2007-2008

24.3

Steering Group, elections to the

35.1

Steering Group five-year review

14;35.5;Appendix 2

Steering Group meetings, dates of future

22; 23; 35.2

Steering Group members’ declarations of interest

2; Appendix 3

Strategic discussion in Vellore, appropriate topics for

35.2

Strategic Plan and Management Plan

separate document

Strategic review of the Collaboration

17

Sub- and Advisory Group budget requests 2007-2008

24.4

Succession planning for Cochrane Review Groups

29

Trading Company Directors, issues raised by the

26

Translation of Cochrane products (non-scientific)

13

Treasurer’s report

24

Vellore, Steering Group mid-year meeting in 2008

22.2; 35.2

Webcasting the Dublin plenary sessions, lessons learned from

31.1

Websites management, status report and funding request

12

Wiley report (publication of The Cochrane Library)

11

 


Minutes of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 April 2007

 

[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 31 May 2007.]

 

 

Present: Godwin Aja, Lorne Becker (Chair for items 1-13, 16-24.3, 29-36), Lisa Bero (Chair for item 15), Jonathan Craig, Jon Deeks, Deborah Dixon (John Wiley & Sons, for items 7-9, 11), Zbys Fedorowicz, Ruth Foxlee, Donna Gillies, Adrian Grant (Chair for items 14, 24.4-28), Jini Hetherington (Company Secretary, minutes), Monica Kjeldstrøm (Director, Information Management System, and also representing the Trading Company Directors), Joy Oliver, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (John Wiley & Sons, for items 7-9, 11), Nick Royle (Chief Executive Officer), Rob Scholten, Peter Tugwell, Janet Wale, Liz Waters, Narelle Willis, and Hans van der Wouden.


1          Welcomes; apologies for absence; introductions; approval of the agenda

            Lorne welcomed everyone to the meeting. He thanked Rob for the excellent arrangements he had made for the joint special discussion attended by the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive, and the two and a half day Steering Group meeting. Lorne welcomed Jonathan Craig and Ruth Foxlee to their first Steering Group meeting, and conveyed Sally Green’s apologies for absence.

2          Steering Group members’ declarations of interest

            No declarations of interest were made in addition to those that had been circulated with the background documents for this meeting, and attached to these minutes as Appendix 3.

3          Introduction from the Co-Chairs

            Lorne gave a brief introduction to the meeting. He noted that the agenda contained a number of substantive issues which promised some interesting discussions. The redesign of the meeting agenda had allowed time for two focused half-day discussions on particular topics, as well as for adequate discussion of other important issues. Lorne thanked those who had prepared background papers for the agenda. He noted that these papers are an essential component of the redesign of the agenda, and play a large role in making it manageable. He also indicated his belief that background papers facilitate more informed decision-making, and help those proposing issues to the Steering Group to do a better job of presenting them. Lorne asked for continuing feedback on the format of the Steering Group agenda, which has evolved with the aim of being more strategically focused.

 

Among the important issues to be discussed were decisions about the first round of submissions to the Opportunities Fund, proposals for prioritization projects, and changes to the remit of the Executive. Lorne also noted that the role of Co-Chair has continued to expand and now demands more time than can reasonably be expected from two volunteers who have full-time job responsibilities in other areas. This does not create an immediate problem for the Collaboration because one of the current Co-Chairs is retired, but efforts should be made in the next eighteen months to find ways to lighten the load for his successor. Creation of the role of an Editor-in-Chief, to include many of the current responsibilities of the Convenor of the Publishing Policy Group, would be one possible approach. A move to a three-year Chair succession model, as outlined in the background paper on the Steering Group review (agenda item 14), would probably help as well. Workload for the Co-Chairs is an issue that needs addressing as part of the Collaboration-wide review. 

 

4          Chief Executive Officer’s report

            Nick based his report under the headings of product, structure, governance, finance and communications. He noted that production levels appeared to have levelled off, and that the most recent Issue of The Cochrane Library flattered production because of the inclusion of 22 reviews from the Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. Sales of licences and national provisions continued to be healthy, although the large increases of recent years may now also have levelled. The Steering Group celebrated recent national provisions for India and Poland. Discussions of product mix, with the traditional review structure being supplemented with derivative products and discussion of future products, would continue. The Collaboration’s structure was under review, with the planned Collaboration-wide review to be led by Jeremy Grimshaw. It was hoped that wide consultation would allow the Collaboration to ensure that it remained fit for purpose in mission, structure and process for many years to come. Governance issues were already under consideration through the Steering Group review, and would also be included in the Collaboration-wide review. The financial situation remained healthy. Nick had hoped to share the financial information from the most recent round of entity monitoring, but the data had not yet been fully analysed. A report would be available as soon as this had been completed. A key consideration for the Steering Group was how best to return to entities the benefits of publishing success, and discussions about this would take place during the meeting. Communications remained an important issue, and the initial Steering Group Bulletin had been well received as a first step. Communication issues would need to address perceptions, no matter how misleading, as well as fact, and an important aspect of this should be to address misconceptions of the role and activities of the Steering Group itself in the wider Collaboration.
Action: Nick

5          Cochrane Opportunities Fund

            Rob left the meeting for this item because he was involved in one of the proposals. Jon, as Chair of the Opportunities Fund Selection Panel, summarised that there had been seventeen applications, and that the Selection Panel had consisted of eight members of the Steering Group. Each application had been rated by two panel members; Jon and Nick had read all the applications. Those which did not fulfil the criteria were identified as unfundable. The five applications rated as a priority to fund were then identified from the remainder. There was unanimous ratification by the Steering Group of four of the proposals that the Selection Panel recommended should be funded. There was lengthy discussion of the fifth proposal: on a vote (from which Peter Tugwell abstained) it was agreed to fund this proposal. Jon agreed to write to the successful applicants; he would also explain to the unsuccessful applicants the reasons why their applications had not been fundable. In next year’s call for proposals, it was agreed to make it clearer what type of projects stood most chance of being funded, i.e. those which would have Collaboration-wide benefits. The focus within the Strategic Plan for next year’s round should be announced as soon as possible, to give people more time than in this first round in which to work up new proposals. Jon would provide some text for the next Steering Group Bulletin.
Action: Jon

6          Cochrane Prioritisation Projects Fund

            Due to the involvement of Steering Group members in a number of the applications to this Fund, it was decided that they should be assessed by a different group than the Steering Group as quickly as possible. Jonathan, Lisa and Lorne would identify a Co-ordinating Editor, a Centre Director and a Field Co-ordinator who are not on the Steering Group to form the panel, and come up with their recommendations within one month; these would not need ratification by the Steering Group.
Action: Jonathan, Lisa, Lorne 

7          Status of RevMan 5 and release plans

            This item was taken after item 11. Monica referred to the recommendation in her background paper that the transition period in which reviews are allowed in both RevMan 4 and RevMan 5 format as publications in The Cochrane Library be expanded from nine months, as previously agreed, to two years. The previous decision had been made by the Steering Group on the basis that changeover from the old to the new format would be automated. The RevMan team had been able to make a better assessment of the work involved in moving a review from RevMan 4 to RevMan 5, and had found that the conversion would benefit from manual intervention. Much of the conversion of reviews from RevMan 4 to RevMan 5 would be automated, and those reviews that would need manual intervention could be supported by central resources. Nevertheless, some of the remaining changes (such as assessing the byline and author affiliations) might depend on local knowledge. In addition, Monica stressed that the process of rolling out RevMan 5 to author teams would need a lot of support. More experience needed to be gained as to the challenges that the transition to RevMan 5 would present to those who would be involved in the process. She reported that consultation had taken place with Wiley, the RevMan Advisory Group, the Editorial Management Advisory Group, and the IMS Support Team: the feedback from the three latter groups had been supportive that the transition period should be extended, but from a publishing point of view, Wiley would prefer to keep to the original timescale.

Adrian expressed concern that any aspects of the conversion that required participation by authors could not be done quickly for all reviews of a CRG, and that a longer rollout period for RevMan 5 would be needed if any author input to conversion of their reviews was required. The alpha version of RevMan 5 had only just been released, and it was not yet clear how difficult the conversion process would be. During conversion, information about allocation concealment would be stripped from the Tables of Included Studies and moved to the Risk of Bias tables, which are designed to include allocation concealment as well as a number of other risks that have not been systematically included in reviews in RevMan 4. Risk of Bias tables appeared to be the only feature that would require author input in the conversion process. Jon explained that authors would need to re-read the reports of each of the studies included in their review(s) in order to fill in the other portions of the Risk of Bias tables. Other new features, such as the ability to select key figures or include Summary of Findings tables would also require author decisions. However, these features are not essential and converted reviews could be produced without them. It is not clear whether the conversion of dates into history entries and ‘What’s New’ can be done automatically, but if decisions are needed for each review, these would likely require input from the editorial bases.

Firm timelines for the various components of the transition (availability of RevMan 5, ability of the Wiley team to convert RevMan 5 documents for publication in The Cochrane Library, availability of training and training schedules, etc.) are unavailable at present. Deborah PG noted that a prolonged transition period could lead to problems for the publisher, who will have to operate two separate rendering systems for a longer period than the original nine months. Also, users may be confused by the prolonged presence of two different review formats, and the need to support two formats could impair Wiley’s ability to make needed changes to the new format if these are found to be necessary. Lorne agreed to set up and chair an ad hoc implementation group to look at the relevant timelines and processes for conversion and to make recommendations about the transition. The group will include Donna, Hans, Lorne, Monica, Narelle, and representation from the Wiley technical team responsible for the design of the new format for Cochrane reviews. The group will consult with Review Group Co-ordinators, the Handbook Advisory Group, the Information Management System Group, and other relevant groups. 

 

            While it was agreed that the period of nine months for rollout is now in question, no revised timeline was agreed on, pending the recommendations from the ad hoc group. Information about the timelines will be published in a future Steering Group Bulletin.
Action: Donna, Hans, Lorne, Monica, Narelle, Deborah PG

8          Planning for implementation of changes to Cochrane Reviews

            There was discussion of the background paper that raised the question of how training would be provided for authors, editors, Review Group Co-ordinators or others concerning the multiple changes coming with RevMan 5, including new types of reviews (methodology, diagnostic, and overviews); new tables (risk of bias, studies awaiting assessment, summary of findings); new statistical methods; new options for display of data; and new definitions and terms for important events in the evolution of a review (such as ’Update’). The IMS Support Team will provide training and support for software issues related to Archie and RevMan, but will not be able to support third-party software such as the software package that will be used in the preparation of Summary of Findings tables. The Summary of Findings group is willing to be involved in this, but would need resources in order to provide support to authors. In addition, no organized approach to training in non-software related issues has been planned. The issue had been discussed briefly at the Centre Directors’ meeting, but no action plan had resulted from that discussion. Methods Groups will assist with training, but are only able to do so at Colloquia. It was suggested that it would be good to include Internet-based distance learning materials with an assessment of competence component, and it was noted that pilot projects of this nature were planned.

 

            Donna offered to take the lead in mapping out the way forward, and put together a proposed budget for consideration by the Executive. Adrian urged that recommendations should be developed from general principles, in order to inform future practice, such as, “Do authors need to be involved?”
Action: Donna


9          The future of CENTRAL
Lorne highlighted that the Steering Group fully recognises the value of the contribution that Trials Search Co-ordinators (TSCs) make to the work of the organisation. He reported that the agreed interim measures are in progress; however, the long-term strategy is still unresolved. The issues raised in the background paper, including the uncertainties about the specific details of the proposed replacement for CENTRAL, the possible costs, and the lack of a host entity were discussed in some detail. Ruth stressed the TSCs’ concern as to the importance of the resumption of submission of registers to a central database, and urged that discussion of the longer-term plans should not delay moving forward with this issue as quickly as possible. Gail Higgins’ findings, to be reported on to the Steering Group soon, via the Publishing Policy Group, should inform the decision to be made on this. In the meantime, the Steering Group recognises and agrees with the TSCs’ concerns about the need to resolve quickly any issues impeding the interim measures. Ruth was therefore asked to organize a working group of TSCs to advise the Steering Group on these issues, whose focus should be twofold. In the short term, they should focus on the process of submission of registers. The lessons learned in that process would then be helpful in investigating the longer term future of CENTRAL.

 
To ensure optimum inter-operability between the reference management software and the development of CENTRAL, the Steering Group asked that the TSC working group investigate a range of packages with a view to establishing which single package might best be used Collaboration-wide. The
working group’s remit should encompass other key issues to be resolved, as determined by the group itself. Mindful of the importance of this process to the Collaboration, and of the need to ensure a bottom-up approach, the TSC working group should call on the Steering Group for an appropriate level of resources to ensure a good process and widely acceptable outcome. In order to keep the redevelopment process moving, a conclusion on the reference management software issue would be appreciated well before the next Colloquium, in October 2007. The working group should report back to the Steering Group, through the Publishing Policy Group, at frequent intervals between now and October.

 

The Steering Group agreed that a project manager should not be put in place until a scoping exercise has been undertaken as to how this longer-term process would be taken forward, including an estimate of the resources needed to do so. The input of the TSCs through their working group will be invaluable to this exercise.

Action: Ruth

 

10        Decision time: Proposal for an editorial board  
This item was discussed at the beginning of the afternoon on 20 April. The previous day’s discussions of the paper presented by the Co-ordinating Editors had received unanimous support in principle from those present (Centre Directors, Co-ordinating Editors and Steering Group members). It was recognized that the proposal was primarily about a method of organizing Co-ordinating Editors to fulfil their role more effectively and hence to improve the quality of reviews, that their efforts would be co-ordinated with other relevant Collaboration groups and initiatives (including the Handbook Advisory Group and the Quality Advisory Group), and that both the structure and function of the proposed ’editorial board’ would be expected to evolve over time. Lisa reported that the Centre Directors were supportive of the proposal and eager to collaborate on projects related to quality. A number of implications of the proposal were discussed. The question was raised of whether all Co-ordinating Editors were supportive of the concept and would co-operate in the quality initiatives to be put in place, but the Steering Group was assured that all Co-ordinating Editors had been given ample opportunity to have input into the paper and that all were supportive. It was pointed out that the aims, roles and responsibilities, and terms of reference laid out in the document did not include some of the functions commonly expected for an editorial board, and it was suggested that a more appropriate name for the Co-ordinating Editors’ group might be identified. If the eventual aim is to have this group fulfil the roles of a traditional editorial board, it would be important to incorporate additional members other than Co-ordinating Editors. The Steering Group invited the Co-ordinating Editors to bring a further proposal outlining the next steps to the Executive.
Action: Jonathan, Peter

 

Financial support will be needed for an individual to be appointed with credibility and previous editorial experience, to spend a proportion of their time over the next 18 months to talk to all the different constituencies in order to develop the terms of reference to flesh out this idea of an editorial board. Staff time and travel would also need funding, and the proposal to the Steering Group Executive would be expected to incorporate these items. Views should be sought of others than Co-ordinating Editors who have an important role in the preparation of reviews. Nick suggested that Wiley could assist in fleshing out these proposals. The initiative received wholehearted approval in principle from the Steering Group and was seen as an excellent example of a way of channelling some of the Collaboration’s income to an activity that will support the efforts of all Review Groups.  Although the consideration of an Editor-in-Chief was not part of the Co-ordinating Editors’ proposal, it was seen to be closely related and they were encouraged to include this idea in their ongoing discussions. Sophie Hill had agreed to produce an appendix to the report of the previous day’s discussions. Jonathan and Peter would produce a summary of these decisions for the Steering Group Bulletin.   
Action: Jonathan, Peter

11        Publication of The Cochrane Library

            This item was taken first, after the agenda had been approved and introductions had been made. Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert introduced the way that Wiley is now looking forward with regard to publishing the Collaboration’s product. She pointed to the chart in the background papers showing the growth in royalties. Deborah explained that dependency on revenue from national licences was less than it had been hitherto; a stable growth rate of 7-10 per cent is expected in the coming year: excluding national provisions, 41 per cent of revenue is coming from North America, 42 per cent from Europe, and 17 per cent from the rest of the world. Deborah addressed the openness of Wiley to developing new approaches for keeping ahead of the field. She supported the current consideration of an editorial board for the Collaboration to develop approaches for improving the quality of reviews, and potential for developing strategic relationships, capitalising on the academic setting, and continuing medical education (CME). It was suggested that producing more accessible versions of Cochrane reviews might be the focus of discussion at the special session during next year’s mid-year meeting; there would have to be something in it for authors of reviews. Deborah agreed to bring some proposals to the Steering Group via the Publishing Policy Group as a matter of urgency. Deborah D explained that Wiley has now legally taken over Blackwell. Business has more than doubled as a result; the company is now publishing about 250 medical journals on behalf of medical societies. She also explained that BMJ Books is now part of Wiley, and will soon be presenting new opportunities to the Steering Group for consideration. There is a good cultural fit between the two companies; Blackwell has led the way in becoming carbon neutral with its ‘Green Office Initiative’, and Nick drew attention to the good guidance they have produced on publication ethics.   
Action: Deborah PG, Deborah Dixon

12        Websites management: status report and funding request

            Lorne outlined the recent improvements in development of the Collaboration’s main and entity websites, and in particular noted that savings to entities produced by the centralised entity website template system were now roughly equal to the core website budget. The Steering Group approved forward funding of 100,000 GBP per year for three years, adjusted for inflation over that period. The funding request of 24,000 GBP for user interface redesign for rollout in 2009 was approved in principle; Nick should seek more information before it could be enacted. The funding request pertaining to internationalization initiatives was not approved, as this was covered in the separate proposed Steering Group initiative for translation of Cochrane written material (see below). The request for funding for a consumer taxonomy for abstracts was rejected as too expensive; Dave Booker should be asked to consider whether this could be done at much lower cost, and from within the core budget. It was pointed out that linkage between our website and that of The Cochrane Library has been strengthened, and that our site is increasingly steering people towards our reviews.
Action: Nick

13        Translation of Cochrane products  

            Nick had prepared a background paper requesting approval in principle for translation of non-scientific material on the website such as training materials, the five introductory leaflets to The Cochrane Collaboration and The Cochrane Manual into languages other than English. Approval was given to allocating 50,000 GBP per annum for three years in the first instance. Wiley has first refusal on the translation rights on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and translation of this resource is likely to be dependent on Wiley finding other partners. If Wiley choose not to pursue its option to translate the Handbook, the Collaboration could seek to do this, but as this initiative is aimed at the less scientific materials, it might not be a suitable translation target under this initiative. Consideration should be given to the most appropriate items for translation. Whilst it was noted that translation of reports of trials would be extremely useful to authors, it was not seen as being part of this project, and should be considered as a separate project proposal. It was noted that free internet resources could provide sufficient translation for screening purposes. It was agreed that the plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews are important items to translate, and the views of Centres and the Developing Countries Initiative should be sought on the other items that would be important to them to have translated. Progress on translation of scientific output by Wiley has been limited, and Nick confirmed that renegotiation of the publishing contract is taking this into account. He would convey the background to these decisions to Dave Booker who also had an interest in translation issues.
Action: Nick

14        Five-year review of the Steering Group: Implementation of the review panel’s recommendations
Adrian chaired the discussion of this item in a separate session on the morning of 21 April – see Appendix 2.

Lisa chaired the discussion of item 15.
 

15        Co-Chair position

            Lisa explained that Adrian had become Co-Chair mid-term. He had expressed his willingness to continue in this role for a further two years, from October 2007 to October 2009. He said he would concentrate on the responsibilities of the Steering Group Executive, and cease to be a member of the Publishing Policy Group. He would also want to see through implementation of the Review Panel’s recommendations (see item 14). Adrian left the meeting while the Steering Group considered his nomination. Lorne explained the degree of overlap of the Co-Chairs’ responsibilities, and the fact that it is not a problem that both Co-Chairs are not on both the Executive and the Publishing Policy Group. Adrian was unanimously re-elected as Co-Chair, and Lorne called him back into the meeting and thanked him for his willingness to do this.

Lorne chaired the discussion of items 16 to 24.3.

16        Proposed expanded remit for the Executive Group

16.1     Advisory Group reporting: Instead of reporting to the full Steering Group at its face-to-face meetings, it had been proposed that Advisory Group Convenors should report to the Executive. Convenors would participate in the Executive teleconference at which their report was being discussed, as would the two Steering Group representatives on the particular Group. The Groups would only report once a year, at the time of submitting their budget request for the coming year. Adrian did not recommend having an annual face-to-face meeting of all Advisory Group Convenors; instead, it was agreed to invite the Convenors and Co-Convenors to a Steering Group dinner during the Colloquium, as a way of expressing appreciation for their hard work, and to air informally any issues they might have.
Action: Jini

16.2     Delegated decision-making responsibility within The Cochrane Collaboration: Nick explained the background to his proposed table of decision-making responsibility. It was agreed that the proposed financial limits related to specific decisions rather than annual totals, that a report back to the Steering Group will be expected on each expenditure of funds, and that the Treasurer should be designated along with the CEO and Co-Chairs for inclusion in all decisions in this table. After discussion, the financial limit for urgent decision-making by the CEO/Co-Chairs/ Treasurer was increased to “Up to £15,000”. The table for urgent financial decisions was also adjusted to raise the financial limit for formal Steering Group meetings to “Over £50,000”, in line with the limit of Steering Group responsibility by correspondence, which was set at “Up to £50,000”. The Administrator and Bookkeeper should be involved where appropriate. In emergencies it might not be possible to involve all those named. The rows analysing decisions according to their non-financial ‘Impact’ were considered to be unnecessary. Nick will remove these from the table and circulate the updated version to the Steering Group.

                        Action: Nick

17        Strategic review of The Cochrane Collaboration

            This item was the subject of a separate discussion by telephone with Jeremy Grimshaw who is leading this review. Jeremy outlined his strategy and likely work plan, which included wide consultation within the Collaboration and a proposed timeline of a final report to be delivered at the Freiburg (2008) Colloquium; the Steering Group thanked Jeremy and gave its approval to this plan.

18        Strategic Plan - Management Plan

            This was provided as background for the meeting, but not specifically discussed. Members were asked to provide Nick with updated material as appropriate.

            Action: Everyone
 

19        Register of reports of diagnostic test accuracy
The Steering Group gratefully acknowledged Ruth Mitchell’s informative progress report. Jon would write and thank her for this.
Action: Jon
 


20        Reports to the Steering Group:

20.1     Publishing Policy Group (PPG): Lorne’s progress report as Convenor of the PPG was received with appreciation. The requested budget of 5000 GBP for a face to face meeting and teleconferences during the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved without discussion. However, Jini was asked to check this figure against the cost of the PPG meeting in February 2006 as it seemed somewhat low; she should come back to the Executive if additional funds were needed.
Action: Jini

20.2     Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG): Rob reported that an exploratory meeting for a proposed Nursing Care Field was to be held in the near future. Some concerns had been expressed about duplication of effort in terms of creating a specialised register, organising a group around a particular profession, and not taking into account some concerns that had been raised in the past. These concerns were noted. The requested MRG budget of 11,000 GBP for a face-to-face meeting and teleconferences during the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved.

 

20.3     Cochrane Library Users’ Group (CLUG): Emma Irvin’s report as Convenor of the CLUG was acknowledged with appreciation. The requested budget of 918 GBP for the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved.  

 

20.4     Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG): The six-monthly report provided by Steve McDonald and Jordi Pardo was received with appreciation. Their requested budget of 7700 GBP for the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 and the request for funding to replace the Colloquium Manager software program were approved without discussion. The paper ‘Reducing the carbon footprint - Cochrane Colloquia’ referenced in their report was discussed separately (see item 31.2).

20.5     Feedback Management Advisory Group (FMAG): There was a broad discussion of the FMAG’s activities. Lisa and Peter agreed to convey its substance to the outgoing Convenor, and to encourage the person who has been proposed as the new Convenor to accept the role. The outgoing Convenor was thanked for her service to the advisory group. The issue of appointing a Co-Convenor will be addressed at a later date.

Action: Lisa, Peter

 

20.6     Handbook Advisory Group (HAG): The Steering Group appreciated the report provided by Sally Green and Julian Higgins, the Co-Convenors. Their requested budget of 5179 GBP was approved, in addition to the carryover of 2238 GBP from the previous financial year (i.e. a total budget of 7417 GBP).

 

20.7     Information Management System Group (IMSG): Mike Clarke’s report was received with appreciation. The requested budget of 23,580 GBP for the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved.

 

20.8     Quality Advisory Group (QAG): The report by the Co-Convenors, Sally Green and Harriet MacLehose, had been appreciated; their requested budget of 1000 GBP for the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved.

 

20.9     The Campbell Collaboration: Lorne thanked Peter for his status report on The Campbell Collaboration.
 

21        Reports from entity representatives:

 

21.1     Cochrane Review Group issues: No particular issues of concern were raised that had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.

 

21.2     Methods Group issues: No particular issues of concern were raised that had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.

 

21.3     Field/Network issues: No particular issues of concern were raised that had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.

        

21.4     Centre issues: Lisa reported on the ‘Medical Milestones’ competition that had been run by the BMJ, which had been sponsored by AstraZeneca, unbeknownst to Lisa and Kay Dickersin. Adrian and Lorne agreed to write to the BMJ expressing the Steering Group’s concern.

            Action: Adrian, Lorne

22        The next three Steering Group meetings:

22.1     São Paulo: 22 and 25 October 2007: There was nothing to report except to note the dates of these meetings.

22.2     Vellore: 11-13 April 2008: There was nothing to report except to note the dates of these meetings.

22.3     Freiburg: 3 and 6 October 2008: There was nothing to report except to note the dates of these meetings.

 

23                             The next three Cochrane Colloquia:

 

      23.1     São Paulo: 23-27 October 2007: Adrian reported that Jini and Sally

                              Hopewell of the UKCC had visited the Brazilian Cochrane Centre for a week in February; Andy Oxman and Karla Soares-Weiser had also visited for a week, one month later. Adrian expressed the Steering Group’s appreciation to them for this. It had since been agreed that someone with good experience of the Collaboration, and fluent in both English and Portuguese, was needed to provide ongoing support to the organisers and liaison between them and members of the Collaboration. Karla had expressed her willingness to fulfil this role, and Alvaro Atallah, Director of the Brazilian Cochrane Centre, had welcomed this arrangement. Adrian would hold regular teleconferences with him until the Colloquium, to provide additional support.
Action: Adrian
 

23.2     Freiburg: 3-7 October 2008:            There was nothing new to report about next year’s Colloquium in Freiburg. This would be the first Colloquium for which the Steering Group would seek to ensure that key issues for the scientific programme are included, in dialogue between the Executive and the Colloquium organisers (see item 35.4).

 

23.3     Invitation to host the 2009 Colloquium in Singapore (4-8 October): Nick raised the issue that the Steering Group has no ‘say’ in setting the theme of its annual conferences, nor in how they are organised. He proposed that there be a formal agreement with future hosts, with agreed timelines, to be worked out with the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group. Adrian agreed to write to the Director of the Singapore Branch and accept his offer to host the 2009 Colloquium, and let him know that Nick would draw up a formal agreement for this, with agreed timelines.
Action: Adrian, Nick 

24        Treasurer’s report on financial and legal matters:

24.1     Current financial position: Donna drew attention to the main items of interest in the spreadsheet and cash flow forecast. Jini reported that the bookkeeping services of a trained accountant and bookkeeper, Graham Carson, had been engaged on an hourly basis to make all payments and prepare the accounts of the Collaboration and the Trading Company, commencing this month. Nick undertook to prepare information for the Steering Group Bulletin about those items that are to be funded as the result of decisions made at this meeting, with input from Donna.
Action: Nick, Donna
 

24.2     Cash flow forecast: Lorne showed several slides demonstrating projections about the anticipated financial impacts of the decisions made during this meeting and of other initiatives still under discussion. Even with relatively conservative income assumptions (e.g. that Wiley’s income will increase at five per cent per annum) the Collaboration will have no difficulty in funding all of the decisions made at this meeting of the Steering Group. However, several of the initiatives under discussion (such as an Editor-in-Chief or the suggested revisions to CENTRAL) could be quite expensive. Donna, Lorne and Nick will prepare similar projections for future Steering Group meetings to facilitate decision-making about the most appropriate use of Collaboration resources.
Action: Donna, Lorne, Nick

24.3     Steering Group and Secretariat budget for 2007-2008: There were no queries about the proposed budget for the new financial year, and it was approved. The Steering Group agreed that they did not need to see the budget in so much detail in future, but would leave this to the Treasurer.

Adrian chaired the discussion of items 24.4 to 28.

24.4     Sub- and Advisory Group budget requests for 2007-08: These budget requests were approved (see above).

25        Cochrane Collaboration funding: process for Steering Group consideration of funding proposals from entities


25.1     Income to entities:

Donna gave a brief introduction to her background paper, which raised a number of questions about how the recent increase in royalty income could best be used to support the activities of Cochrane entities. It was noted that the royalty income is still less than ten per cent of the collective income of all Cochrane entities and activities. A number of options were considered.  Adrian summarised the discussion. The Collaboration has a responsibility to use the income from The Cochrane Library to greatest benefit. This would be delivered by concentrating resources on core activities related to the Strategic Plan, and by ensuring that supplemental funds would make a difference and were not available from an alternative source. An approach that focused on ‘enabling’ rather than ‘rewarding’ was seen as preferable. There was agreement that across-entity initiatives aimed at improving effectiveness and efficiency of review production would have the greatest impact; these could also be presented to other funders as ways in which the Collaboration is improving what they get from their investment. Such initiatives could be delivered in a multi-faceted way as:

·         A ‘commissioned’ approach, with the Steering Group working with ‘clusters’ across entities (e.g. TSCs) to generate work programmes to promote effectiveness and efficiency.

·         Open opportunities for people within entities to address priority issues in ways that the Steering Group had not previously thought of (i.e. similar to the new Opportunities Fund).

·         Cross-Collaboration support such as the current Colloquium-sponsored entity registration fees.

 

In the light of this discussion, the criteria to be used for future rounds of the Opportunities Fund will be considered, particularly whether or not institutional overheads should be included in grant awards.

Action: Adrian, Jon, Lorne, Nick

The Steering Group then considered the implications of these discussions for the Prioritisation Fund. Prioritisation of topics for Cochrane reviews had been identified as an important aim and the Prioritisation Fund had been established to address this. It was acknowledged that it will only be clear how well the funded projects address the specific issues identified in the Khon Kaen discussion (see Prioritization report from the Khon Kaen meeting) once the Prioritisation Fund applications have been reviewed and approval decisions made. However, based on initial review, none of the proposals addresses the suggestion made in Khon Kaen for a pilot of a Rapid Response Team. It was agreed that this proposal about commissioning such a facility should come to the Executive so that a decision can be reached quickly; it would need a firmer budget than that suggested in Khon Kaen. Before this goes out to consultation with members of the Collaboration, draft documents should be circulated to the whole Steering Group.

 

At the end of the session, Donna agreed to develop the ideas that had been discussed, and to circulate a document to aid future decision-making, based on clear underpinning principles. Liz and Peter agreed to present a document on the proposed Rapid Response Team for an Executive teleconference in the near future.
Action: Donna, Liz, Peter

25.2     Cochrane Developing Countries Network – funding request: Joy and Zbys left the meeting after providing background to the establishment of a Cochrane Developing Countries Network (CDCN). The Steering Group expressed strong support for this initiative. It was pleased with the kinds of things contained within the proposal, but expressed some concerns, partly because this was an application for infrastructure funding, and partly because the project managers needed to engage with the Centre Directors in order to succeed. There was agreement to consider a more focussed project in discussion with the Centre Directors, with a revised budget for project costs only. Lisa was asked to arrange for a revised proposal to establish a Cochrane Developing Countries Network to be on the agenda of the Centre Directors’ meeting in São Paulo, to be attended by CDCN representatives. The project managers should submit a formal request to the Steering Group Executive for funds to attend this meeting if necessary. Lorne would respond formally to the applicants.
Action: Lisa, Lorne

26        Issues raised by the Trading Company Directors
Adrian thanked the Directors for their document; no items required discussion. The table of key dates in 2007 was noted.

27        Commercial sponsorship policy: three-year review

Nick reminded the Steering Group that it was time to undertake the three-year review of the Collaboration’s policy on commercial sponsorship, and introduced his paper on the topic, with four recommendations for action. It was agreed that it was necessary to gather the evidence in order to evaluate the effects of this policy.

·         Recommendation 1 - An objective financial review, based on Monitoring and Registration Group annual monitoring data (‘Part B’ plus contextual/subjective responses to the MRG monitoring process):
The Secretariat would undertake this recommendation.
Action: Nick

·         Recommendation 2 - A subjective survey of entities to gauge their experience under the new policy, three years in:
Nick would undertake a survey to determine this.
Action: Nick

·         Recommendation 3 - A subjective survey of significant stakeholders, including funders, related organisations, and consumer groups:
The Steering Group agreed not to implement this recommendation.

·         Recommendation 4 - A research project to conduct a systematic review of relevant information on the subject of the effect of commercial sponsorship on organisations such as, or similar to, our own:
Lisa reported that although studies of the effects of sponsorship on trials and on systematic reviews had been published, it might be very difficult to assess the effects of commercial sponsorship on an entire organization. Perception remains a major factor governing this issue. It was suggested that if such a review were done, it might take a narrower focus, e.g. assess the impact of commercial sponsorship on a specific meeting (such as a Colloquium). It was agreed not to undertake such a project. However, it was agreed that the data from Lisa’s study of commercial sponsorship to entities needed to be updated. She would provide Nick with the data on commercial sponsorship of research, and send the slides she had presented at the Dutch Symposium to Jini to arrange to put them onto the website.
Action: Lisa, Jini

28        Proposed Bill Silverman Prize

            Adrian explained that the late Bill Silverman had undertaken pioneering trials in neonatology in the 1950s, including a trial of different levels of oxygen supplementation that demonstrated that high oxygen levels caused blindness through retrolental fibroplasia. He had had a strong influence on people’s thinking, particularly in the perinatal field, and had always been very challenging of authority. He had also had a major influence on Iain and Jan Chalmers who had offered to provide financial support for a prize in Bill’s name. The Steering Group was most appreciative of this proposal. It was agreed to recommend that the Prize should not be doubled the following year if not awarded in one year. Adrian undertook to discuss with Iain making the annual amount of the Prize closer to that of the Thomas Chalmers Award (i.e. 1000 USD). The Steering Group would need to consider the longer-term future of the Prize well before the funds run out. Peter agreed to write a brief paper suggesting additional ways of celebrating achievements within the Collaboration, for consideration by the Executive.
Action: Adrian, Peter

Lorne chaired the discussion of items 29 to 36.

29        Succession planning for Cochrane Review Groups
Lorne explained that the Centre Directors and Co-ordinating Editors’ executive had discussed Mike Clarke’s paper on this topic while in Amsterdam. Jonathan explained that Richard Hughes had taken on the responsibility for taking this forward on behalf of the Co-ordinating Editors. Rob reported that the Centre Directors had also discussed the issue briefly, and had referred it to the Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG). All three groups were grateful to Mike for raising this for discussion. The Steering Group will discuss a policy proposal resulting from the recommendations provided by Richard Hughes and the MRG.
Action: Rob

30        Discretionary Fund expenditure

            This item was for information only.

31        Environmental sustainability:


31.1     Lessons learned from webcasting the Dublin plenary sessions:
Lorne expressed appreciation to Mike Clarke for producing a background paper on the lessons learned from the Dublin Colloquium with regard to reducing the carbon footprint of future Colloquia. Differing opinions were expressed on the extent of the Collaboration's responsibilities on the issue of environmental sustainability in general. The recommendations in Mike's report were discussed in turn, and the following decisions were taken:

1.  It was agreed to broadcast as much as possible of the Colloquium on the internet, and to provide details on how to watch these broadcasts as far in advance as possible.

2.  It was agreed that adding the complexity of allowing live questions to be asked from afar during the plenary sessions and annual general meeting would not be justified.

3.  It was agreed to try to make it possible for presenters to make their presentations through a video conference link.

4.  It was agreed to explore having a voluntary ‘online registration fee’ for Colloquia, as a way of people contributing towards the costs of Colloquia, even if not attending in person. This would minimise the impact of remote viewing on the registration income for a Colloquium.

5.  It was agreed that all printed material for Colloquia should be available on the internet, and that people should be offered the choice of whether or not to receive a printed copy of the Programme and Abstracts book.

6.  It was agreed that recycled material should be used for Colloquia as much as possible, to minimise the impact on the environment, and that appropriate recycling facilities should be available during Colloquia.

7. 
It should be left to individual entities to choose whether or not to conduct carbon audits. It was noted that preparation of carbon audits could require time, effort and attention from entities and decrease their capacity to produce reviews. It was pointed out that many entities participate in carbon audits performed by their own institutions, and that performing a separate carbon audit for their Cochrane entity alone could be quite challenging. The World Land Trust (www.carbonbalanced.org) provides a template for calculating one’s carbon audit, should people be interested in doing so on an individual basis.

8.  There was no agreement as to whether or not the Collaboration should report on its carbon footprint.
 
31.2     Reducing the carbon footprint - Cochrane Colloquia: Lorne said that trying to persuade people not to come to Colloquia has a negative impact on our mission. We should acknowledge the fact that Colloquia are about a great deal more than plenary sessions. The Steering Group thanked the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group for their careful consideration of the issue of environmental sustainability, but acknowledged the great benefit from people attending Colloquia. Ruth said it was common for Trials Search Co-ordinators not to be able to attend Colloquia for funding reasons. Webcasting is the only way that some people can have access to the content of Colloquia, and it increases participation from those who have difficulty in attending in person. Webcasting should therefore be seen as increasing inclusiveness. Nick recommended investigating the use of podcasts of the main sessions, because webcasting cannot deal with time zone differences. Advice will soon be available from the German Cochrane Centre with regard to webcasting. The choice of meeting times should take into account the time zones of participants who are unable to attend in person. We should also look beyond plenaries, and consider other options. Payment of an ‘online registration fee’ for people not attending a Colloquium but participating at long distance, suggested by the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group, should be voluntary.
           

32        Matters arising from the minutes of the previous Steering Group meeting in Dublin, not already dealt with

            There were no additional items to discuss, that had not been raised previously in this meeting. Nick reported that a year ago The Campbell Collaboration had entered into a partnership agreement with the American Institutes of Research (AIR). Some Campbell members now felt that they had not understood the full implications of being taken over by AIR. Funding renewal is due this June and discussions are underway to define the relationship as a partnership better. Phil Davies as Executive Director is grappling with this issue. They are also looking into identifying a publishing partner.

33        Spreadsheet of Steering Group members’ outstanding action items

            Lorne reminded everyone to let Diana know of their completed action items, so that this spreadsheet can act as a useful prompt for their use.
Action: Everyone

34        Allocation of funds to specific proposals
           
See item 24 above.

35        Any other business:

 

            35.1  This year’s elections to the Steering Group: It was agreed to maintain two representative positions on the Steering Group for members of the Consumer Network. The Field representative should continue to be elected by the usual process, excluding members of the Consumer Network from standing or voting for this position. Jeremy Grimshaw should be asked to look at the anomaly of the Methods Groups continuing to have only one representative on the Steering Group, as part of the Collaboration-wide review.

            Action: Lorne

            35.2  Topics for special session at mid-year meeting in Vellore: Three items were identified as possible topics for discussion: ‘How we can use our resources most effectively’, ‘Evaluation and monitoring of performance as the result of decisions made’, and ‘Academic vs practical evidence-based health care’ (see item 35.3). Lorne would offer Jeremy some time for discussion of the Collaboration-wide review. People were asked to identify other topics to the Co-Chairs.
Action: Lorne

 

35.3     Academic vs practical EBHC: In her presentation to the Steering Group, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert had drawn a distinction between academic and practical evidenced-based health care (EBHC) products. The Collaboration’s core activities of producing Cochrane reviews was in the academic category, but there were recent examples of ‘spin-off’ products, such as ‘Evidence-Based Child Health’ that were in the second category. Deborah had raised the question of whether the Collaboration wished to remain focused on academic EBHC or whether it wished to diversify further into practical EBHC. Members of the Steering Group thought that the advantages and disadvantages of the various options should be explored. Nick would ask Deborah to work with Liz in identifying what practical EBHC products are on the market, what we are currently doing in this area, what are the opportunities, and what the financial and other costs would be. This might be a suitable topic for discussion at the special session during the mid-year meeting in Vellore in 2008 (see item 35.2).
Action: Nick, Liz

35.4     Steering Group input into scientific content of Colloquia: It was agreed that the person who would be undertaking the project overview should look at those projects that are coming to fruition, such as the Collaboration-wide review. Jini should make ‘Progress on projects’ a standing item on future Steering Group meeting agendas. Nick agreed to communicate with future Colloquium hosts on the process for organising the Steering Group’s input to the content of the scientific programme for their Colloquium. He would also advise the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group of the need to do this for all future Colloquia (see item 23.2).
Action: Jini, Nick

35.5  Communication to entities about the Steering Group review: It was agreed that the Co-Chairs would make a presentation about this at the Annual General Meeting in São Paulo (see item 14 above).
Action: Adrian, Lorne

 

36        Thanks to the hosts and organisers of the meeting
Lorne thanked Rob, Hanni Spitteler and all at the Dutch Cochrane Centre for hosting such a successful and enjoyable meeting. He also thanked the Secretariat staff for preparing the background materials for the meeting, and Jini for taking the minutes.

 

* * * * *

 

 

NOTE: CONFIDENTIAL ADDENDA

At times it is difficult to document Steering Group decisions without impinging on individual confidentiality, breaking commercial confidence, or revealing other sensitive material. In such cases, a confidential addendum to the minutes is prepared.



APPENDIX 1

 

Half-day discussion concerning the formation of an editorial board – 20 April 2007

 

This discussion was focused on the following four questions:

 

1.         Do you approve in principle the further development and establishment of an ‘editorial board’ made up of all Co-ordinating Editors and an executive group with responsibilities delegated from the board? What are the opportunities and challenges?

             

2.         Do you agree with the suggestions in Appendix C concerning:

a. the draft aim of the board

b. the draft role and responsibilities of the board

c. the draft terms of reference for the board executive


Do you have suggestions for improving them?

             

3.         What are some of the important priorities for the board to address?

             

4.         What sorts of barriers will need to be overcome for the editorial board to be able to meet these priorities?  Are there aspects of the current structures, processes, and initiatives of the Collaboration that might need to be addressed?

 

Each question was addressed in turn in each of three small groups, and then by the group as a whole following a report from each of the three small groups. The following issues were raised.

 

Agreement in principle with the further development and establishment of an ‘editorial board’ made up of all Co-ordinating Editors, and an executive group with responsibilities delegated from the board

 

There was consensus in all of the groups that this was a good idea and should proceed.  There were questions about whether “editorial board” was the best name for the group, given that many of the proposed functions and roles were quite different from those of a traditional editorial board.  This issue was not discussed in detail and will be the subject of further discussion at a later time.

 

Opportunities

 

·         Increased communication among co-ordinating editors

·         Increased focus on quality of reviews

·         Would complement other quality improvement initiatives such as those of QAG

·         Reduced duplication of effort

·         Increased standardization across groups

·         Would facilitate collaboration between groups

·         Increase discussion and planning for key issues including:

o        Training

o        Succession planning

Challenges

 

·         Current diversity of procedures between CRGs

·         Defining quality standards

·         Prioritization of quality issues

·         Getting commitment and endorsement from all Co-ordinating Editors

·         Ensuring that the executive group has the authority to enforce its decisions across CRGs

·         Will Co-ordinating Editors find adequate time to participate?

·         How will collaboration with important other groups/individuals (such as RGCs) be obtained?

·         What resources are needed or available?

 

Agreement with the draft aim, role and responsibilities of the board and  the draft terms of reference for the board executive

 

There was general agreement with these issues as outlined in the background paper.  However, a number of important items had not been fully addressed in the paper, and would need to be developed further.  These include:

 

·         The composition, terms of reference, responsibilities and reporting relationships of the executive group

·         The relationships between the board and executive group and other existing Collaboration groups such as the steering group, QAG, HAG, methods groups, etc.

·         Effective ways to include input from non-co-eds  (consumers, methodologist, authors, etc) in the group’s decision making.

 

Important priorities for the board to address

 

These are listed in random order (i.e. there is no implication that the items higher on the list are more important than those lower down):

 

·         Establishing a method for ongoing sampling of reviews to assess their quality

·         Developing a version of the handbook for editors

·         Developing training processes and opportunities

·         Setting quality standards

·         Updating of reviews

·         Setting up a process to identify the main quality problems needing attention

·         Implementation of RevMan5

·         Implementation of central copy editing

·         Linkages with Wiley

·         Developing methods to keep Co-Eds, editors and others up to date with quality standards.

 

Barriers to be overcome

 

·         Forming a new group will make the already complicated structure of the Collaboration even more complex.

·         The Cochrane tradition of individual group autonomy will be challenged by the expectation of joint quality improvement activities across all groups.

·         Potential for the perception by some CRGs that quality solutions are being imposed upon them.

·         Need for adequate resources, including funding for face-to-face meetings. 

 

 


Appendix 2

 

Five-year review of the Steering Group:

Implementation of the review panel’s recommendations

 

Adrian Grant thanked Nick Royle for his background paper, itemising the review panel’s recommendations, describing actions already taken to implement them, and listing other possible responses. Adrian encouraged members to raise additional recommendations to those contained in the background paper.



Recommendation 1: The Steering Group should consider reorganising its activities in such a way that a more clear separation of ‘micro-management’ from ‘policy setting and strategic planning activities’ occurs. A clarification of the responsibilities and duties of the Chief Executive Officer and the Secretariat is an essential component of this effort.

The Steering Group had already taken the following steps that addressed this recommendation:

·         Half-day sessions had been set aside at Steering Group mid-year meetings for discussion of major strategic issues, in conjunction with Centre Directors and Co-ordinating Editors. In the 2007 mid-year meeting a further half-day had been committed to a second strategic discussion limited to Steering Group members. It was agreed that this model should continue in future mid-year meetings. Other groups of people than Centre Directors will be invited to attend joint strategic sessions in future, dependent on the agenda. Topics for discussion at these sessions will be set in the context of the Strategic Plan, and will not necessarily be decided upon by members of the Steering Group.

·         The Steering Group agenda has become more strategically focussed: it is now structured around the strategic plan with separation into items for discussion or decision and items just requiring Steering Group consent.

·         The CEO has taken on more of the micro-management of the organisation, particularly those consequent on decisions taken by the Steering Group.

The following further responses were agreed:

·         Biannual reports from advisory groups are being moved off the Steering Group agenda, and will be dealt with by the Executive through a single annual report from each group (see item 16.1).

·         Entity representatives will canvass their constituents for items for discussion further in advance of Steering Group meetings.

·         Entity representatives are already expected to report relevant Steering Group decisions to their groups; in future, this communication will be facilitated by ‘open access’ background documents for Steering Group meetings being available in Archie.

·         Items for Steering Group meeting agendas will be looked at in advance to see what groups need to be consulted before meetings.

·         More background information will be made available on the Collaboration website, possibly using the ethics guidelines of other organisations such as Wiley as a model.

·         Ways will be considered to enhance the accessibility of information that is already available about the Secretariat; one option is the new Steering Group Bulletins.

·         Jini was asked to investigate making the Steering Group minutes on the website password protected to members of the Collaboration.
Action: Everyone; Jini


Recommendation 2: The Steering Group should consider the pros and cons of setting up mechanisms for auditing how main policy decisions are received by entities, whether they are fully understood, as well as the opportunity to assess adherence to them periodically. 

·         The current process for monitoring entities does not adequately identify all the matters of most importance to the Steering Group in assessing the health of the organisation, and should be reviewed. The extent to which information about individual entities as opposed to groups of entities would be available should be considered as part of this process.

·         There should be clearer communication of decisions that have an impact on entities. Steering Group Bulletins will go some way towards achieving this, but other ways to do this should be sought.

·         The extent to which policy decisions are implemented should be monitored more closely. Appropriate indicators should be identified at the time when decisions are taken.
Action: Rob, Adrian, Lorne, Nick


Recommendation 3: A more proactive responsibility should be played by the Steering Group in ensuring the quality of reviews by setting up specific organisational arrangements such as working more closely with Co-ordinating Editors, implementing mechanisms to audit methodological and content quality of sample(s) of reviews periodically in The Cochrane Library, appointing a Cochrane Library Editor-in-Chief and/or an editorial board.

·         Steering Group discussions should, as a routine, include assessment of the quality of our product.

·         Active steps have been taken to work more closely with Co-ordinating Editors: through the joint strategy meeting at mid-year Steering Group meetings; and through provision of financial support to the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive to attend these meetings and to produce a background paper for discussion at them.

·         The 2007 joint strategy meeting had considered a proposal from the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive for the establishment of a Co-ordinating Editors’ board, and the Steering Group had subsequently agreed to this in principle.

·         A background paper for the joint strategy meeting had been provided by the Quality Advisory Group. It was recognised that the Quality Advisory Group would have a key role in any new initiative to improve quality.

·         Initiatives to improve quality will require resources, particularly for groups such as the Methods Groups that do not receive funding from elsewhere.

·         Lisa will draft a proposal for conducting an assessment of  the quality of Cochrane reviews from a variety of perspectives (i.e. methodological, consumer, copy editing, etc.) for consideration by the Executive, with assistance from Janet, Jon, Jonathan and Liz, looking across CRGs. Lisa will ask Sally Green if she would be prepared to be involved; Methods Groups’ assistance would also be sought.
Action: Lisa, Janet, Jon, Jonathan, Liz


Recommendation 4: Explicit mechanisms to promote prioritisation of reviews are in urgent need. As the issue of prioritisation emerged as a critical issue in this review, the Steering Group should take decisions aimed at putting the experimentation(s) suggested by the ‘brainstorming session’ held at the last Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen (Thailand) in place, paying special attention to the pros and cons of implementing the different options.

·         Prioritisation has been given urgent consideration by the Steering Group. This was the topic of the joint strategic session at the 2006 mid-year meeting, and this led to a call for proposals to address the Collaboration’s needs identified at the meeting. Applications are currently under review and funding decisions will be made within the next two months. Successful applicants will be asked to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches to prioritisation in their final reports. Prioritisation projects that are funded will be described on the website.

·         The extent to which the projects funded through the prioritisation scheme meet the needs identified at the 2006 joint strategic session will be actively assessed with a view to commissioning any necessary further work.

·         Once the funded projects are nearing completion, a follow-up meeting, including people external to the Steering Group will be held to discuss the implications for the Collaboration and how any changes would be implemented.

·         The Steering Group will review the information that entities give to the Monitoring and Registration Group describing how they prioritise reviews. Action: Lorne, Nick


Recommendation 5: A specific strategic action stream securing the funding needed for long-term sustainability should be developed in collaboration with the different entities (Review Groups, Centres, other entities). This action should be seen as linked to the issues addressed in Recommendation 9. Entities’ representatives on the Steering Group should play an active co-ordination role toward their constituencies and favour the development of actions that the Steering Group should try to implement at Collaboration level.

·         Income from sales of The Cochrane Library represent less than ten per cent of the Collaboration’s current total income stream. Funding from this source is therefore not a viable alternative to the current arrangement whereby each entity takes responsibility for securing its own funding.

·         Finding funds often requires considerable effort from entities and these activities can take people away from their core function of producing reviews.

·         With a view to helping entities and the Collaboration generally, Nick will seek a professional consultant to undertake a scoping exercise to advise the Steering Group on ways of raising funds. A figure of 15000 GBP was approved for this exercise. The terms of reference should be for across-entity funding and for nationally funded entities. This exercise will involve contacting members of the Collaboration to find out what works for them, and talking to people outside the Collaboration such as stakeholders, to produce a series of recommendations.

·         It was agreed to employ one or more fundraising specialists, and defining the exact role and scope of the post(s) will be deferred until the wider scoping exercise referred to above has been completed.

·         The best use of funds that are now being generated through sales of The Cochrane Library is being considered as a separate agenda item on the Steering Group’s agenda; these deliberations will also feed into the Steering Group’s formal response to the review.

·         Nick will seek clarification from Alessandro Liberati of the second sentence of this recommendation.
Action: Nick


Recommendation 6: The Steering Group should take seriously the challenge of improving the effectiveness of its internal communication mechanisms with entities. Respondents have suggested specific solutions that should be discussed by the Steering Group for possible implementation. Internal language barriers (true and potential) should be seriously considered in an international organisation such as The Cochrane Collaboration, and all ranges of possible remedial actions carefully considered. 

·         It was recognised that communicating only the important information will help to improve communication, while acknowledging that different topics are important to different people/groups.

·         The editor of CCInfo and Cochrane News will be undertaking a survey shortly to identify people’s communication needs and preferred methods.

·         Using a single channel of communication within an entity has not proved adequate.

·         One perceived barrier is over-use of email through distribution lists; putting more information into Archie should help to reduce this.

·         Rob will ask the Monitoring and Registration Group to include a question on the monitoring form about the entity’s communication strategy.

·         Nick will ask Dave Booker to investigate having a page on cochrane.org pointing people to where they can obtain the information they are looking for, paying attention to ‘internal language barriers’ such as the large amount of jargon and acronyms used within the Collaboration, as well as the different first languages of members of the organisation.

·         Steering Group Bulletins will provide more user-friendly access to this group’s discussions. Entity representatives are also responsible for feeding back in a constructive way without overloading people.

·         Lorne will develop a brief document describing how these suggestions will be taken forward.
Action: Rob, Nick, Lorne 


Recommendation 7: The representation of entities on the Steering Group may be reconsidered, though no clear cut suggestions emerge from this review. Issues that may deserve discussion are the current mechanisms of having two Co-Chairs, the personal/professional characteristics that Co-Chairs should have, the possibility to recruit as Steering Group members 1-2 persons external to the Collaboration (with a view to advancing strategic relationships with other international organisations).

·         Evidence from the review did not indicate that reconsideration of representation of entities on the Steering Group should be a priority, although this will be reassessed after the forthcoming review of The Cochrane Collaboration.

·         The workload of the chairing function of the Steering Group is substantial, even with two Co-Chairs. Adrian, Lorne and Nick will develop ways of refining the current process of working, to relieve the workload on the Co-Chairs. This will include: consideration of expanding the role and staff of the Secretariat; and of having a three-year cycle for Co-Chairs’ terms of office: Co-Chair-elect; active Co-Chair; and Co-Chair with an ‘ambassadorial’ function (relevant also to recommendation 9). Nick will investigate the processes used by societies which have a Chair Elect. Nick will also ask the person who will undertake the scoping exercise to look at the issue of buying in those skills not present in the current membership of the Steering Group, and of establishing an advisory board with no management function. In the future, non-Steering Group members of the Collaboration will be eligible to stand for the position of Co-Chair. However, formal election will be limited to candidates with the necessary background and experience, as judged by a committee made up of present and past members of the Steering Group.

·         Lorne will ask Jeremy Grimshaw to consider some of these issues as part of the Collaboration-wide review he is about to lead. Specific issues include: renaming some entities to reflect stakeholder issues; and clearly identifying the tasks that volunteers should be doing, and those that people should be paid to do.

·         Adrian, Lorne and Nick will work on how best to implement the changes suggested at this meeting, providing a paper for the next Steering Group meeting in São Paulo in October 2007.

Action: Adrian, Lorne, Nick


Recommendation 8: The Steering Group should review carefully whether the Secretariat includes all the skills that are needed to assist the Steering Group in the executive function. Strengthening and diversifying the Secretariat would seem appropriate in order to free Steering Group time and to improve several issues that have emerged as critical in this review (i.e. internal communication). Skills that may have priority include packaging and dissemination of information (i.e. journalism), and ability to foster and motivate entities’ involvement in various activities of the Collaboration.

·         Nick explained that the Secretariat is working at full capacity. He identified a ‘project oversight co-ordinator’ as his top priority for strengthening the Secretariat, with core responsibility for maintaining oversight of all projects under way within the Collaboration, and ensuring effective communication about these between entities. The post was agreed to,  and Nick will draft a job description for this.

·         The possible post of Editor-in-Chief was seen as a particularly promising way to assist the Steering Group in its executive functions and to improve communication across entities.

·         The question of whether the Collaboration should take greater responsibility for the content and conduct of its Colloquia was also discussed; Nick will consult with the Centre Directors and Colloquium Policy Advisory Group about this and report back to the Steering Group.
Action: Nick


Recommendation 9: The Steering Group should be more proactive in establishing collaborative relationship(s) with external organisations. This ‘ambassador-type’ role should be played by the Co-Chair(s) or by a person specifically appointed by the Steering Group and identified for her/his specific skills in the area. If identified from outside the Steering Group, such a person should report periodically to the Steering Group and be monitored on her/his performance.

·         A range of post holders (such as Steering Group members, Centre Directors and Co-ordinating Editors) within the Collaboration have ‘ambassadorial’ responsibilities, reflecting the Collaboration’s devolved and international structures.

·         Changes proposed in response to recommendation 7, such as a three-year cycle of Co-Chairs, and election of Co-Chairs no longer limited to members of the Steering Group, are partly prompted by this recommendation, aiming to allow the Co-Chairs time to be more proactive in linking with other groups initiated by members of the Collaboration equipped to do this.

·         Linking with external organisations could also be a part of the remit of a new post of Editor-in-Chief (see response to recommendation 3).

·         This recommendation is also being addressed by ongoing consideration of who our stakeholders are.


Recommendation 10: Given all the considerations above, no change to the current frequency of Steering Group reviews can be recommended. The issue should be reconsidered in consideration of the changes to the Steering Group’s structure and duties that may be decided after this review.

·         The next review of the Steering Group should take place in 2010. Nick will add this to the Strategic Plan and Management Plan.
Action: Nick


Recommendation 11: The Steering Group should set criteria or key performance indicators for judging its performance and that of the Collaboration as a whole to aid monitoring of progresses as well as future reviews similar to this one.

·         This is addressed in the response to Recommendation 2.


Recommendation 12: The Steering Group should make a strong effort in its strategic planning to link it transparently to the Collaboration’s priorities and budgetary plans, and to identify explicit outcomes against which the implementation of its policies can be evaluated.

·         Moves have already been made to link the Steering Group’s activities to the Strategic Plan, and Steering Group Bulletins will emphasise this link.

·         Principles for budgetary planning are being developed to ensure that Collaboration funds are used to best advantage.

·         The question of monitoring implementation was discussed under Recommendation 2.


Recommendation 13: Formal and explicit mechanisms for prioritisation and decision-making processes about the use and allocation of resources should be set up, allowing the Collaboration’s members opportunities to comment on and give input to the Steering Group’s proposals.

·         Discussion of this recommendation was deferred to items 16.2 and 25.1 of the Steering Group agenda.


Recommendation 14: The need for a Collaboration-wide review emerged both from the analysis of the questionnaires and from the interviews. If such a review is undertaken, the Review Panel warns that it would entail considerable costs and should be carefully thought through in terms of its expected benefits and the acceptability/feasibility of the changes that may emerge as to the structure of the organisation.

·         Jeremy Grimshaw of the Canadian Cochrane Centre is leading this review. Adrian will let him know that the Steering Group is very grateful to him for undertaking to use part of his forthcoming sabbatical period to do this. In the light of this recommendation, Jeremy will be asked to assess the likely feasibility and acceptability of any changes that he wishes to recommend.
Action: Adrian
 

Recommendation 15: If a Collaboration-wide review is to be implemented, the Review Panel recommends several specific points should be part of it [see background document].

These points have been addressed in response to other recommendations, above.


Recommendation 16: The Review Panel recommends that the discussion and actions taken as a consequence of this review be timely and transparent. To this end it recommends that the Steering Group finalises an implementation plan within the next few months.

·         Nick will draft a document itemising the Steering Group’s response to the recommendations and seek comments on it from the Steering Group and members of the Review Panel. Once an updated version of this has been agreed by the Steering Group, it will be widely circulated within the Collaboration, and formally presented at the Annual General Meeting during the São Paulo Colloquium (see item 34.5 below).

·         Adrian will write and thank Alessandro Liberati, his panel and support staff for all their hard work in undertaking this review.
Action: Nick, Adrian


APPENDIX 3

 

Declarations of interest


The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group (CCSG) is the governing body of The Cochrane Collaboration, and the board of directors of the registered charity. Its members are elected by the overall membership of The Cochrane Collaboration for three years, with annual rotation of a proportion of its members. A conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest (e.g. personal financial gain) can influence, or have the appearance of influencing, judgments regarding the primary interest (e.g. service on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group). Steering Group members are asked to disclose all relationships with commercial organisations that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest. The term 'related organisation' in the questions below means any organisation related to health care or medical research. These declarations of interest are updated quarterly.

Godwin Aja, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Author, Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group; Member, Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group; Member, Health Promotion and Public Health Field:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? 
I serve as associate professor, health promotion and education, at Babcock University, Nigeria. 

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.  

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Lorne Becker, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, Member, Executive Group; Convenor, Publishing Policy Group; Co-ordinator, Primary Health Care Field; Author and Peer Referee, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Review Group; Author, Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group; Member, Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group, and Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: Honorarium from Thompson Micromedex for serving on the editorial board of their DiseaseDex publication. This relationship ended on 1 July 2006.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? 
Yes: Small gifts from the Welch Allyn Corporation and the Dutch Dairy Council.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?  No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Lisa Bero, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Feedback Management Advisory Group; Funding Arbiter; Member, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: In the past five years, I have received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (research money derived from the tax on cigarettes), and Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute, National Science Foundation.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: I have received consulting fees from the University of Colorado for conducting workshops in evidence-based medicine, and the Academy for Educational Development for peer reviewing documents.  I receive an annual consulting fee from British Medical Journal Publishing for serving as a senior editor for Tobacco Control. 

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have accepted honoraria from the Association of Medical Writers and Dartmouth University for talks on reporting of scientific research in the lay press, the World Health Organization and Pomona University (European Union Center) for talks on public commentary on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Kaiser Permanente for talks on (a) evaluating the quality of research and (b) tobacco industry manipulation of research, the World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics for a talk on managing financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials, and the Brooklyn Law School for a talk and paper on systematic reviews. 

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No. Since 1991, I have been a full-time faculty employee of the University of California, San Francisco

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: I receive about $50 US per year in royalty fees from the University of California Press for the publication of The Cigarette Papers. 

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Jonathan Craig, Cochrane Review Group representative (of Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor Liaison with Monitoring and Registration Group; Co-ordinating Editor and Author, Cochrane Renal Group; Author, Cochrane Anaesthesia, Incontinence, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Ear Nose and Throat, and Gynaecological Cancer Review Groups; Member, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group and Child Health Field: 

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.  

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Jon Deeks, Methods Group Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Co-Convenor, Statistical Methods Group, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews Working Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Member, Quality Advisory Group, RevMan Advisory Group, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group, Reporting Bias Methods Group:

A.  Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: I received funding from 2001 to 2003 to employ a research fellow from Pfizer Ltd. My salary is part funded by a UK DOH NCC RCD Senior Research Fellowship in Evidence Synthesis, the rest being paid by the University of Birmingham. I have received funding from Cochrane Collaboration core funds to co-ordinate the initiative to develop Cochrane Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. From 2007 to 2012 I will be in receipt of a grant from the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme to support the implementation of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy within The Cochrane Collaboration. I have received grants for both methodological and clinical projects from the UK NHS Research Methodology Programme, the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme, and the UK Medical Research Council. 

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: I received payment from the BMJ for reviewing and attending committees since 2000. I was paid consultancy fees by Pfizer Ltd for statistical advice in 2001 and 2002.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I received an honorarium from NICE for lecturing in 2004, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (University of Oxford) in 2006, and a book from Wiley for reviewing a journal proposal.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: my unit has received royalty payments from the BMJ for reprint sales.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Zbigniew FedorowiczRepresentative of members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director, Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Information Management System Group; Member, Health Related Quality of Life Methods Group; Member and Peer Referee, Cochrane Oral Health Review Group; Member, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Review Group; and Member, Health Promotion and Public Health Field:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Ruth Foxlee, Trials Search Co-ordinator Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Information Management System Group; Member, RevMan Advisory Group; Trials Search Co-ordinator, Cochrane Wounds Group; Author, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research: No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Donna Gillies, Author Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Treasurer; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections, Anaesthesia, Heart, Musculoskeletal, Neonatal, Schizophrenia, and Wounds Review Groups; Peer Reviewer, Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis, and Anaesthesia Review Groups:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?  No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?  
I have received honoraria as a reviewer for the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No. 

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Adrian Grant, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Convenor, Executive Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Incontinence Review Group; Author, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth, Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases, and Renal Review Groups; Consumer Reviewer, Cochrane Neuromuscular Diseases Review Group:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? 
Yes: UK NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme; UK Medical Research Council; BUPA Foundation; UK NHS R&D Service Delivery and Organisation Programme; Scottish Higher Education Funding Council; UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.  I have received no research funding from commercial organisations.  However, SHIRE Pharmaceuticals and NYCOMED supplied, free of charge, vitamin D, calcium and placebo tablets for an MRC-funded clinical trial in the UK of which I was the chief investigator.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? 
Yes: a single payment from Ethicon Endosurgery for attendance at a meeting to discuss possible research collaboration not pursued.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


[Sally Green did not attend this meeting.]


Joy Oliver, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Member, South African Cochrane Centre; Assistant Review Group Co-ordinator, HIV/AIDS Group:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Rob Scholten, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Co-Convenor, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Member, Statistical Methods Group, and Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author, Cochrane Back, Dementia and Cognitive Improvement, Depression Anxiety and Neurosis, Heart, and Neuromuscular Disease Review Groups:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I received an unrestricted amount of 5000 euro from Organon Biosciences as a contribution to a symposium.
 

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Peter Tugwell, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Feedback Management Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group: 

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I receive a stipend from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology for my editorship of the Journal.  I also receive honoraria from the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: from Abbott, Almirall, American College of Rheumatology, Astra Zeneca, Aventis, Berlex, Biomatrix, Bristol Myers Squibb, British Medical Journal, Cadeuceus Group, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Eli Lilly, Foundation for Better Health Care, Glaxo-Welcome, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Innovus, Johnson & Johnson, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Lilly Research, Medicine Group, Medicus, Merck, Merck Frosst, Milbank Memorial Fund, Novartis, Ortho McNeil, Pennside, Roche, Sandoz, Scios, Searle, Wyeth Ayerst, University of Minnesota, University of British Columbia, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, University of Southampton, UpToDate, VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? 
See #1 above.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
I receive royalties for the book 'Evidence Based Rheumatology' from BMJ Books (Blackwell Publishing) as well as royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins for the textbook 'Clinical Epidemiology'. I also receive editorial royalties from UpToDate.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Janet Wale, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Quality Advisory Group; freelance editor and consumer representative on Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australian health committees; consumer for the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Musculoskeletal, Musculoskeletal Injuries, and Heart Review Groups: 

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Elizabeth Waters, Field Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Director, Health Promotion and Public Health Field; Member, Child Health Field Advisory Board; Member, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Heart, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Airways, and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Groups:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I have received funds from the NHMRC, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and philanthropic trusts. Colgate provided toothbrushes free of charge to a randomised controlled trial on which I was CI, and we distributed these as part of a multifaceted intervention program. 

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes, from the World Health Organization, the Victorian Cancer Council, and the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
I received a one-off payment for two book chapters in 'Evidence-based Paediatrics and Child Health'. 

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Narelle Willis, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of Review Group Co-ordinators), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Quality Advisory Group; Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Hepato-Biliary Review Group, External Referee, Hepato-Biliary Review Group; Member, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author, Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Working Party for Cochrane Review Groups Procedures Collection; Member, Abstract Committee for the XIV Colloquium:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I am funded by a Department of Health and Ageing (Australian Government) grant.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No: I am an employee of The Children’s Hospital at Westmead and Associated Academic Staff with the School of Public Health, The University of Sydney.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Hans van der Wouden, Representative of members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Steering Group representative, CENTRAL Vision Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Airways Group, Ear, Nose and Throat Group, Skin Group; Member, Child Health Field:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? 
Yes: as an employee of Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, I have received research funding from two pharmaceutical companies:  GlaxoSmithKline and ARTU Biologicals.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? 
Yes, as a reviewer of papers for the BMJ I received several vouchers from the BMJ Publishing Group, and a fee from The Lancet.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? 
Yes, as an employee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, I received 1623 euros from the BMJ Publishing Group for royalty fees for the sale of reprints of a paper we published in the BMJ.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Monica Kjeldstrøm,
Director, Information Management System, Nordic Cochrane Centre:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? If yes, list. No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? If yes, list. No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? If yes, list. No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? If yes, list.
I’m employed by Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, as Director of the Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System. My employment is permanent but Rigshospitalet can change my position. Rigshospitalet provides my only source of income. I am also a Director of the Collaboration Trading Company.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)?
I have been given, and continue to hold, shares in a small Danish biotechnology company. I’m not able to trade in these and do not receive any income from them. I will not influence the conduct of any review in which this company might have a financial interest.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

 

Declarations of interest of Secretariat staff

Jini Hetherington, Administrator and Company Secretary, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.


Nick Royle, Chief Executive Officer, The Cochrane Collaboration; Member, Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group: 

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B.  Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.