Quality Advisory Group (QAG) report to CCSG meeting Providence

1.       How many meetings, and of what type (e.g. face-to-face, by teleconference), has your Advisory Group had since October 2004? 

Members of QAG met face to face at the Ottawa Colloquium and the co-convenors have met by teleconference once since. The two working groups associated with QAG (Cochrane Collaboration Style Guide Working Group and CRG Resource Website Working Group) continue to meet by teleconference.

Is this what you expected when you set your budget for the year?

Yes.

 

2.       Supply an up-to-date list of the members of your Advisory Group.

Mike Clarke                         Methods Group representative

Jane Cracknell                     RGC/TSC representative; EMAG liaison

Mark Davies                        Reviewer [CCSG representative]

Jon Deeks                           Methods Group representative (Statistics)

Cindy Farquhar                    Co-ordinating Editor representative

Graziella Filippini                 Co-ordinating Editor representative

Sally Green                       Co-Convenor; Centre representative

Julian Higgins                      Editor representative

Peter Juni                            Has interest and expertise in systematic review quality

Monica Kjeldstrψm               Information Management System Group representative

Tina Leonard                        RGC/TSC representative

Harriet MacLehose            Co-Convenor

Steve McDonald                   Trials Search Co-ordinator representative

Laura Mellor                        Desk Editor, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Philippa Middleton                Handbook Group representative

Nancy Owens                      Former Quality Improvement Manager

Andy Oxman                       Editor representative

Rob Scholten                       Reviewer representative

Bev Shea                            Reviewer representative

Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin           Criticism Management Advisory Group representative

Lois Sims                            Update Software representative

Liz Wager                           Has interest and expertise in systematic review quality

Janet Wale                          Consumer [CCSG representative]

Liz Waters                          Field representative

 

3.       Summarise any significant actions taken by your Advisory Group since your last report (for the CCSG meeting in Ottawa in October 2004), and significant actions planned for the next six months until the next meeting of the CCSG in Providence in April 2005.

 

3.1. Actions since last report:

 

3.1.1.        General QAG

·         Appointed new co-convenor: Harriet MacLehose has replaced Phil Alderson as co-convenor of QAG. We are grateful to Phil for the enormous contribution he made to QAG

·         Advertised for nominations for the Cochrane Visiting Fellowship

·         Provided advise to PPG re response to inaccuracy in a published review

 

3.1.2.        Style Guide Working Group

·         Submitted revised budget to CCSG exec for maintenance of the Style Guide

·         Continued to maintain Style Guide and web site

·         Full annual report from Style Guide working group due for Melbourne meeting

 

3.1.3.        CRG resource website working group (full annual report appended)

·         Working party has begun refining the site to include one or two generic resources to support good practice for all steps of review production from expression of interest to updating.

·         Finalised title registration form (appended)

·         Compiled list of resources to develop (appended)

·         Addition of wish list for CRGs to make suggestions of resources to develop

 

3.2. Actions planned for next six months

 

3.2.1.                    General QAG

·         Revise membership: the membership of QAG has been constant for many years and members were asked at the Ottawa meeting to consider a rotating system of terms. This will be formalised in the next six months

 

3.2.2.                    Style Guide Working Group

·                     Continue maintenance of Style Guide

·                     Design brief version of Style Guide for review authors

 

3.2.3.                    CRG resource website

·                     Design and implement expression of interest form

·                     Conduct planned evaluation of site

 

4.       Does your Advisory Group have any questions that you would like the Steering Group to answer?  If so, please list them.

Proposed as separate paper to CCSG (‘Training resources website’).

 

5.       Does your Advisory Group wish to raise any problems, and recommended solutions, which you would like the Steering Group to discuss?  If so, please list them:

No.

6.       Do you foresee any problems in keeping within the budget you submitted for the current financial year (April 2004 to March 2005)? 

No.

 

7.       What are your budgetary requirements for the period April 2005 to March 2006?  Please provide a breakdown if appropriate.  (As a reminder, the Steering Group sets the budget for each Group at its non-Colloquium meeting.)

 

The 2004-5 QAG budget of £1000 is appropriate for supporting QAG core activities in the coming year, including telephone meetings of the co-convenors and any expenses associated with meetings at the Colloquium. The style guide working group is supported from a separate budget (put to CCSG exec meeting in March 2005).

 

The members of the CRG resource website working group give of their time voluntarily. The convenor (Sarah Hetrick) is supported through the ACC. Teleconferences between Group members are supported from the core QAG budget.

 

 

 

 

Sally Green and Harriet MacLehose, Co-Convenors, 28 February 2005.


 

Appendix I: 
Report to CCSG on building a CRG resource website

 

Sarah Hetrick and Sally Green

 

 

Purpose: To summarise the outcome of the project to build a resource web site based on the Quality Improvement Manager’s (QIM) Report.

 

Project Aims:

  1. Compile a list of all strategies for management and operation of editorial and organizational processes conducted by Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs), from work done by Nancy Owens and CRG websites
  2. Compile all associated resources for management and operation of these processes, from work done by Nancy Owens and CRG websites
  3. Establish website where all these strategies and resources are available to CRGs
  4. Simplify and improve the CRG Resource Website to reflect ‘good practice’ strategies and resources for all editorial processes

 

Progress:

Strategies and resources have been compiled, and made available as the ‘CRG procedures collection’ on the Cochrane website. The website is password protected and has been made available to RGCs, TSCs and coordinating editors.

 

As part of the second stage of the project, to develop ‘good practice’ resources, a working group, representative of CRGs has been established. The working group includes:

-          Jane Cracknell

-          Sonja Henderson

-          Sarah Hetrick

-          Tina Leonard

-          Ruth Mitchell

-          Theresa Moore

-          Megan Prictor

-          Narelle Willis

 

The working party has limited its scope to those resources involved in the production of a review, from the ‘expression of interest’ stage through to the update stage. It has developed an outline of the steps involved in the production of the review and the associated resources.

 

A pilot has been undertaken to establish the best process for developing ‘good practice’ resources. The entire working party contributed to the development of a generic ‘title registration form’, the content of which has been finalized (appended). Before publication on the website, the document will be created as an interactive document, allowing CRGs to modify it for their own group, and allowing for potential authors to fill in the form electronically. Instructions for how to fill in each section will appear in ‘pop-up’ boxes (text is appended) It will also be circulated to CRGs and to QAG for comment before it is published.

 

Additionally, a list has been compiled of the resources that need to be developed where none has previously existed i.e. no examples from any CRG. These resources will be need to be developed from start to finish and will involve additional time and resource.

 

A wish list/suggestion list has been added to the website so that CRGs can contribute to the site, particularly important while the work to develop ‘good practice resources’ is being undertaken.

 

Finally, this project has informed ongoing efforts to improve the quality of editorial processes in The Collaboration. This has been due to liaison with EMAG (who have co-opted a member of the working group) with particular contribution to developing work flows for the IMS, presentation to and discussion with the RCG group about consistency of editorial process, and consultation to such groups as the CCSG working group on updating.

 

It is anticipated that once the IMS has established standardized workflows for the editorial process, the ‘good practice’ resource documents, developed as part of this project, could be integrated into this system.

 

Time line:

The ‘good practice’ resource documents for the ‘expression of interest’ and ‘title registration’ stage of the editorial process will be completed by October 2005.

 

Planned evaluation

 

 

 


APPENDIX II: Draft of ‘Good Practice’ Title Registration Form

 
The Cochrane [ADD GROUP’S NAME] Group


Proposal for a new Cochrane Review

 


Please complete and email this form to EMAIL ADDRESS

(GROUP TO ADD THEIR EMAIL CONTACT).

[NAME, Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane XXX Group, POSTAL ADDRESS. PH. +XX XXXXXXXXXX Fax: +XX XXXXXXXXXX]

GROUPS TO ADD THEIR CONTACT DETAILS

 

Authors completing this form must note that they are required to read and follow The Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook in preparing their review http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm

 

Proposed Title

Description of proposal

(a)       Objective

(b)       Rationale for review (suggested length # [GROUP TO ADD]  paragraphs)

(c)       Types of study

See section 4.2.4 of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook

(d)       Participants

See section 4.2.3 of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook

(e)       Interventions and specific comparisons to be made

See section 4.2.2 of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook

(f)         Outcomes

See section 4.2.3 of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook

(g)       What subgroup analysis do you intend to undertake?

See section 8.8 of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook

(h)      Other information relevant to this proposal

 

Proposed authors

Contact author name:

 

Co-author(s) name(s):

 

 

Do you or your co-authors have any interests in this topic that could be perceived as conflicts of interest?

See section 2.2 of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook

If ‘yes’, what are they?

 

Is this review the subject of specific funding and/or timing. If yes, please give details.

 

Has the review already been carried out or published?

If yes, where has it been published?

 

 

Role and responsibilities

TASK

WHO HAS AGREED TO UNDERTAKE THE TASK?

Draft the protocol

 

Search for trials (usually 2 people)

 

Obtain copies of trials

 

Select which trials to include (2 + 1 arbiter)

 

Extract data from trials (2 people)

 

Enter data into RevMan

 

Carry out the analysis

 

Interpret the analysis

 

Draft the final review

 

Update the review

 

 

Other information, and assistance requested

Have you or a co-author written a systematic review before?

Yes/No

If yes, was it a Cochrane Review?

Yes/No

Do you have a copy of the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook?

Yes/No

Have you attended a Cochrane review training workshop?

Yes/No

If yes, which one?

 

If no, are you planning to? Which one?

 

Do you have a copy of RevMan 4.2.7, the Cochrane Review Manager software?

Yes/No

Have you seen the Cochrane X Review Group website?

Yes/No

Do you have ready access to email and the internet?

Yes/No

Do you require assistance with:

            English as a second language?

Using RevMan 4.2.7?

            Access to data on The Cochrane Library?

            Translation of articles?

            Training?

Access to a statistician (strongly recommended)?

            Contact with consumer groups?

            Seeking funding/scholarship support?

 

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Would you like to be assigned a mentor (experienced authors who have volunteered to help new authors)

Yes/No

 

Provisional dates for submission of drafts to editorial base

(A)       Draft PROTOCOL  ……………….………………………………………………………..

(B)       Draft REVIEW        . ……………………………………………………………………….

 

By completing this title registration form, you agree to submit a draft protocol within # [GROUP TO ADD NUMBER] months. If there is no correspondence from you during this period, or no draft protocol has been received, the Cochrane Review Group reserves the right to de-register the title or transfer the title to a new author.

 

By completing and returning this form, you are accepting responsibility for maintaining and updating the review in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration policy, i.e. you will be responsible for ensuring the review is updated at least every two years. If you are unable to update this review the Review Group reserves the right to transfer the review to a new author.

 

I understand the long-term commitment necessary when undertaking a Cochrane Review.

 

Form completed by:  ……………………………………………… Date: …….………………

 

 

Details of contact author

Title (e.g. Professor, Mr, Mrs, etc):

…………………………………………………………………………..……

First Name:

……………………………………

Last Name:

………..……………….……………

Job Title/Position:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Department:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Organisation:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Address

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

City:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Region/State:

……………………………………………………………………………………….……….

Country:

……………………………………

Post/Zip code:

………………………….………

Telephone number:

……………………………………

Fax number:

…………………………………..

Email address:

……………………………………………………………………….…………………..……

 

Details of co-authors

 

Title (e.g. Professor, Mr, Mrs, etc):

…………………………………………………………………………..……

First Name:

……………………………………

Last Name:

………..……………….……………

Job Title/Position:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Department:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Organisation:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Address

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

City:

…………………………………………………………………………..……………………

Region/State:

……………………………………………………………………………………….……….

Country:

……………………………………

Post/Zip code:

………………………….………

Telephone number:

……………………………………

Fax number:

…………………………………..

Email address:

……………………………………………………………………….…………………..……

 

Thank you for completing this form.

 

For office use only

 

1. Approved title:

2. Approved by:

 

(a) Name:

Role …………………………………………. … Date approved ………………….………….…

 

(b) Name: …………………………………………………………………………………………….

Role: ……………………………………………. Date approved ………………………………

 

3. Review number:

4. Contact identifiers:

5. Date registered in IMS: ………………………………………………………………………..

6. Notes (eg, CRGs who will provide referees)

 

 


 

APPENDIX IIa: Draft of ‘hidden’ text for
‘Good Practice’ Title Registration Form

 
 


Note to CRGs:

1. There is text throughout the document that needs to be modified or added as appropriate for the CRG.

 2. CRGs can delete, modify or move sections as appropriate for their CRG.

 

Information on constructing a title

There is a standard format for Cochrane Titles:

[intervention] FOR [health problem/ issue] e.g. antibiotics for infection

[intervention A] VERSUS [intervention B] FOR [health problem/ issue] e.g. short term versus long term antibiotics for infection

[intervention] FOR [health problem/issue] IN [participant group] e.g. antibiotics for infection in children

[GROUPS TO ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]

 

Information on the inclusion criteria for the review

Your proposal should not overlap with reviews already published or underway. Please refer to the protocols and reviews currently published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library for this information. To identify our Group’s publications, use the search term
[GROUPS TO ADD THEIR SPECIFIC SEARCH TERM.]

 

(For Objective)

What is the research question?

           

            (For Rationale for review)

Explain why the review is important. You may provide citations of relevant papers.

 

(For Types of study)

Outline the types of studies that will be included in the review. Give thought to whether there are aspects of study methodology that you feel render the study invalid for inclusion, e.g. lack of randomisation, failure to conceal allocation or, in reviews where the outcomes are very subjective (e.g. global assessment of improvement or levels of depression), blinding of the outcome assessor.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]

 

(For Participants)

Outline the types of populations to be included and excluded, with thought given to aspects of the participants receiving the intervention, e.g. age and gender, the type/stage of disease/condition, the method of diagnosis, and co-morbidities.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]

 

(For Interventions and specific comparisons to be made)

Outline what variations of the intervention (e.g. dose, mode of delivery, who delivers it) will be included and the intervention will be compared to e.g. placebo or no treatment, or other interventions.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]

     

(For Outcomes)

List primary (the main conclusions will be based on the primary outcomes) and secondary outcomes to be included in the review, giving thought to those likely to be important to those suffering the disorder as well as those treating them. Give thought to the inclusion of adverse effects. Finally, give some thought to how your outcomes may be measured, both the type of scale or count likely to be used and the timing of the measurement.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]

 

(For What subgroup analysis do you intend to undertake?)

Will certain factors be investigated for their influence on the size of the treatment effect, e.g. dose of active treatment?

 

(For Other information relevant to this proposal)

e.g. relevance of review to consumers, and ideas for consumer input into review.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]

 

Information on authors

List names of those who will be cited as authors on the final publication

This is the person who develops and co-ordinate the review team, discusses and assigns roles for individual members of the review team, liaises with the editorial base and takes responsibility for the on-going updates of the review.

 

There should be at least one co-author (add as many names as necessary).

 

Cochrane Reviews should be free of any real or perceived bias introduced by the receipt of any benefit in cash or kind, any hospitality, or any subsidy derived from any source that may have or be perceived to have an interest in the outcome of the review. It is a matter of Cochrane Collaboration policy that direct funding from a single source with a vested interest in the results of the review is not acceptable.

 

Roles and responsibilities

It is the contact author’s responsibility to discuss and assign roles for individual members of the review team and to develop the review team to ensure that there is provision for the review to be updated, even if the contact author cannot continue in this role. Whilst keeping in mind that roles may change during the preparation of the review, it is important to discuss at an early stage how each co-author will contribute. Please give an indication that the responsibility for the preparation of the review is in hand by specifying who has agreed to complete the following tasks.

 

Other information

Please answer yes or no.

 

Dates of submission

Titles must be approved by the editorial team before you start to prepare the protocol/review.  Note that the policy of the group, in accordance with that of The Cochrane Collaboration requires that you submit your protocol within # months of registering the title, and that the review is submitted within # months of the protocol

being published.

 

Details of authors

Copy and paste this box to include more co-authors as required.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX III:


List of resources to be developed where none has previously existed

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

There are currently no strategies and resources for 16.3 Tracking How Search Results Get Used in Reviews.