Minutes of The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting

Freiburg, Germany,

2 and 6 October 2008

[These minutes were approved on 11 November 2008.]

Subject	Item no.
Advisory Groups, Proposed membership of Steering Group Sub- and	24
Annual General Meeting, Trustees' Report and Financial Statements	7.4
Archie, Elections Working Group recommendations re use of, in elections	25
Archiving in The Cochrane Collaboration	31
Auckland, Steering Group and Centre Directors' mid-year meetings in 2010	27
Authors, Cost of training for Cochrane (MRG Report)	26.2
Branches of Centres, Core functions/expectations of (MRG Report)	26.5
Campbell Collaboration, The, Liaison with The Cochrane Collaboration	39.7
Campbell Colloquium, Invitation to attend, in May 2009	39.7
Cash flow forecast	7.2
CENTRAL progress report from TSCs' executive group	11
CENTRAL Request For Proposals (RFP)	16
Centralised Updating Officer pilot project	10
Centre issues, Report from entity representatives	28.2
Centre, Possibility of establishing a French Cochrane	39.8
Centres and Branches (MRG Report)	26.4
Centres, Number of training workshops offered by (MRG Report)	26.3
Chief Executive Officer’s report	5
Cochrane Library, publication of The (Wiley-Blackwell report)	6
Cochrane Methodology Register	39.1
Cochrane Opportunities Fund	7.6
Cochrane Review Group issues, Report from entity representatives	28.1
Cochrane reviews, short print versions of	6.3
Collaboration software	39.4
Collaboration, Strategic Review of	23
Colloquia, Future Cochrane	30
Colloquium in Keystone in 2010	30.2
Colloquium in 2011, Lack of invitations to host	30.3
Conflicts of interest within the Steering Group, Managing	4.1
Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU): third progress report	14
Copenhagen, Mid-year Steering Group and Centre Directors' meetings in 2009	29.1
Copenhagen, Topic for strategic discussion in, April 2009	39.3
Declarations of interest	3; Appendix
Development, Principles for considering new products for	18
Discretionary Fund	7.7
Diagnostic Test Accuracy, Register of Reports: fourth progress report	15
Duodecim proposal [for an EBM decision support system], Feedback on	18.1
Editorial accountability and conflict resolution	20.2
Editor-in-Chief for The Cochrane Collaboration	20; 39.6
Election criteria for potential Steering Group members	4.3
Elections Working Group recommendations re use of Archie in elections	25
Entities, Decisions made at this meeting to be communicated to	35
Entity performance indicators (MRG Report)	26.7
Entity representatives, reports from	28
Environmental sustainability	37
Evidence Aid, Evaluating	17
Field/Network issues, Report from entity representative	28.4
Financial [and legal] matters [Treasurer’s report]	7
Financial position and cash flow forecast	7.2
Financial reports, understanding the	7.1
French Cochrane Centre, Possibility of re-establishing	39.8
Funding for core functions	7.3
Funding programmes, progress of	7.5
Funds, Allocation to specific proposals	34
Handsearching (MRG Report)	26.1
Impact Factor [of Cochrane reviews]	6.2
Information Management System (IMS) status report	13
Information Management System (IMS): IT consultant's brief and report	8
Keystone Colloquium in 2010	30.2
Methodology Register, Cochrane	39.1
Methods Group issues, Report from entity representative	28.3
Methods Groups' resources, Availability of (MRG Report)	26.6
Monitoring and Registration Group report	26
Network/Field issues, Report from entity representative	28.4
Nursing Care Network, status of proposal to establish a	22
Opportunities Fund, continuation of	7.6
Pensions, Secretariat staff	20.3
Performance indicators, Entity (MRG Report)	26.7
Principles for considering new products for development	18
Publication of The Cochrane Library (Wiley-Blackwell report)	6
Register of Reports of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: fourth progress report	15
Review of the Collaboration, Strategic	23; 39.3
RevMan 5 features, Cambridge training meeting for new	9
Royalties from The Cochrane Library	6.1
Secretariat staff pensions	20.3
Singapore Colloquium in 2009	30.1.1
Singapore, Mid-year Steering Group and Centre Directors' meetings in 2009	29.2
Software, Collaboration	39.4
Steering Group and Centre Directors' mid-year meetings in Auckland in 2010	27
Steering Group Bulletin, Content for the next	36
Steering Group Chairs: eligibility criteria and election arrangements	21
Steering Group decisions, Timing of announcements of	39.5
Steering Group meetings, Future	29
Steering Group meetings, Who should be invited to attend	4.2
Steering Group members, Election criteria for potential	4.3
Steering Group members’ declarations of interest	3; Appendix
Steering Group members' outstanding action items, Spreadsheet of	38
Steering Group, Representation on the	39.9
Steering Group sub- and advisory groups, Proposed membership of	24
Stipend top-up proposal from the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group	30.1.2
Strategic discussion, Topic for, in Copenhagen, April 2009	39.3
Strategic review of The Cochrane Collaboration	23; 39.3
Sub-groups, Proposed membership of Steering Group, and advisory groups	24
Trading Company Directors' report and a resignation	32
Training for Cochrane authors, Cost of (MRG Report)	26.2
Training meeting for new RevMan 5 features, Cambridge	9
Training workshops offered by Centres, Number of (MRG Report)	26.3
Treasurer's report [Financial and legal matters]	7
Trustees' Report and Financial Statements	7.4
Updating Officer pilot project	10
Web developments	19
Vellore, Post hoc amendments to minutes of previous Steering Group meeting	33
Wiley report	6

Minutes of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting

Freiburg, 2 and 6 October 2008

[These minutes were approved on 11 November 2008.]

Present: Claire Allen (Secretariat), Lorne Becker (Co-Chair), Lisa Bero, Mike Clarke (Director, UKCC, for item 8 only), Jonathan Craig (2nd meeting only), Jon Deeks (1st meeting only), Deborah Dixon (John Wiley and Sons, for item 6 only), Zbys Fedorowicz, Ruth Foxlee, Donna Gillies (Treasurer), Adrian Grant (Co-Chair), Sally Green (1st meeting only), Jeremy Grimshaw (for item 23 only), Sonja Henderson, Jini Hetherington (Company Secretary, minutes), Julian Higgins, Lucie Jones (Secretariat), Monica Kjeldstrøm (IMS Director and Trading Company Director, for items 1-8.3, 10-14, 19, 20.1, 20.3, 21-22 [except for the discussion minuted in the final paragraph], and item 23), Steve McDonald, Eamonn Noonan (Executive Director of The Campbell Collaboration, from halfway through the afternoon of the first meeting), Joy Oliver, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (John Wiley & Sons, for item 6 only), Nick Royle (Chief Executive Officer), MaryEllen Schaafsma (for item 23 only), Rob Scholten, Roger Soll (from item 5 onwards), Peter Tugwell (1st meeting only), Janet Wale, Liz Whamond, Katrina Williams, Hans van der Wouden, and Diana Wyatt (Secretariat).

1. Welcome, apologies for absence, and introduction of new members

Adrian welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies had been received from Jonathan Craig for the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October. Sally joined the meeting halfway through the morning, due to a delayed flight. Adrian welcomed the four people who would join the Steering Group at the Annual General Meeting on 5 October: Sonja Henderson (Review Group Co-ordinator representative), Julian Higgins (Methods Group representative), Steve McDonald (Centre representative), and Roger Soll (Co-ordinating Editor representative). He also welcomed Lucie Jones, the new Project Support and Business Communications Officer, who had joined the staff of the Secretariat in July 2008.

2. Introduction to the meeting from the Co-Chairs, and approval of the agenda

Adrian asked for additional items to the agenda; there were none at that point.

3. Steering Group declarations of interest
Adrian said he had an addition to make to his own declaration which he would send to Jini so that she could update the appendix to these minutes and the Steering Group module for publication in The Cochrane Library. He asked anyone else who had additional interests to update and send their declarations to Jini as soon as possible.
Action: Adrian, Jini

4. Managing conflicts of interest within the Steering Group:

4.1 Managing conflicts of interest during Steering Group business:

Adrian provided background to the issue of which interests should be declared by members of the Steering Group. It was reaffirmed that it is more appropriate to make 'declarations' of interest, and these are not necessarily ‘conflicts’ of interest. Adrian posed the following questions:

4.1.1 Does the current process for reporting Steering Group members' potential conflicts of interest fully capture all dimensions?
It was agreed to broaden declarations of interest beyond commercial funding and to include any funding received from the Collaboration, either directly or indirectly. Nick pointed out the difference between receiving money directly from core Collaboration funds and receiving Collaboration funds that had been routed through another organisation; both types should be declared.

4.1.2 In respect of individual agenda items, what circumstances would represent a significant conflict of interest?
It was agreed to continue to use the current definition (i.e. "A conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest (e.g. personal financial gain) can influence, or have the appearance of influencing, judgements regarding the primary interest (e.g. service on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group") as the basis for deciding what circumstances represent a significant conflict of interest. Where there is disagreement about whether or not there is a significant conflict of interest, the final decision should rest with the Chair for that item, after hearing discussion amongst the full Steering Group.

4.1.3 What action should be taken in the event that a Steering Group member is judged to have a significant conflict of interest in respect of a particular agenda item? Should the Steering Group member withdraw from all discussions, or just withdraw from the decision-making?
It was agreed that Steering Group members with significant conflicts of interest should leave the room for all discussion of relevant agenda items, but with the Chair having the discretion to invite them to stay for the discussion (but not participate in decision-making), if in the Chair's judgement this would lead to better quality decision-making. There should be the opportunity for discussion after the interested party has left the room, before a decision is reached.

4.1.4 When should potential conflicts of interest be addressed at Steering Group meetings: at the start, before each agenda item, or in some other way?
It was agreed to address conflicts both at the start of the meeting and when a particular agenda item is discussed.

4.1.5 Are there any circumstances in which a Steering Group member might have such extensive conflicts of interest that they could not properly represent their constituents at Steering Group meetings? If so, would this mean that such people should be deemed ineligible for standing for election to the Steering Group?
It was agreed to defer discussion of this aspect until the second Steering Group meeting, to allow for discussion at entity meetings during the Colloquium (see paragraph 4.3 below).

4.1.6 Should an additional section be added to the standard Steering Group election candidate's statement, asking about potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to Steering Group membership?
It was agreed that an additional section should be added to the standard Steering Group election candidate's statement asking about potential conflicts of interest that might limit participation in Steering Group discussions and decision-making. Declarations should be stratified as core, internal and external interests.
Action: Claire

Lorne then declared a potential conflict in having spoken to intending nominees for the 2008 election to the Steering Group, explaining that they might have a conflict if elected, suggesting that such a conflict could impair their ability to represent their constituent group, and recommending that they consider withdrawing their names from the ballots. Adrian indicated that this did not constitute a significant interest and that Lorne should remain in the meeting and participate in the discussion. Adrian explained the background to Lorne having spoken as he had done, and apologised if in retrospect it had been precipitate.

4.2 Who should be invited to attend Steering Group meetings? There was discussion as to the circumstances in which people other than Steering Group members should be invited to speak to the Steering Group in person, as the current practice is inconsistent. It was decided that individuals should be invited to make an oral presentation in support of a paper only if there was a clear reason for them to do so, and that the same criterion should apply, whether or not the individual involved was a Steering Group member. Decisions about whether or not a presentation was required would be decided before the meeting by the Co-Chairs. Use of the Internet or remote presence technology should be considered for reasons of environmental sustainability and to minimise participation costs.

At this point Steering Group members were invited to make any declarations of interest in any items on the agenda. Monica declared that she had a direct interest in the discussion of item 8 ('IMS: IT consultant's report and brief'), and some conflict with regard to item 16 ('CENTRAL RFP') because of the workload implications for the IMS. Rob had an interest in items 12 ('Diagnostic test accuracy reviews') and 14 ('Continental Europe Support Unit: third progress report').

It was agreed that background papers should have all authors’ names on the first page in future. Declarations should pertain to items that have resource implications in particular, but these should not be the only reason for declaring an interest. Personal financial gain is of course a major conflict. It was agreed that those associated with the IMS do have a conflict when financial decisions are to be made about other agenda items involving requests for funding. Sonja asked if she had a conflict, due to the funds from the Collaboration that buy her time for IMS work as a member of the IMS Support team, which provide the grantholder of her Review Group with greater income to support the work of the Group and additional flexibility. While not conflicted in a financial sense, as her employment was not dependent on the funding for her IMS Support team role, it was agreed that she could have conflicting loyalties in any discussions of the future of the IMS. Monica clarified that she was employed on a permanent contract by Rigshospitalet and that her salary was not funded by The Cochrane Collaboration. Lisa agreed to take the discussion of conflicts of interest to the Centre Directors’ meeting the following day, and report back to the second Steering Group meeting. The Co-Chairs would draft a set of principles for discussion at a future Executive meeting, depending on that second discussion.
Action: Jini, Lisa, Adrian, Lorne

4.3 Election criteria for potential Steering Group members: At the second meeting on 6 October, several entity representatives reported on discussions that had taken place during the Colloquium. Following further discussion within the Steering Group, it was agreed that no change should be made to the eligibility criteria for standing for election to the Steering Group. However, the need for potential candidates to describe their interests fully in their election statements was endorsed, in particular any core funding they received from the Collaboration, to allow voters to judge for themselves whether or not any potential conflict of interest could jeopardise the ability of a candidate to represent their constituency fully. While it had been agreed that the Steering Group would decide which agenda items an individual member was sufficiently conflicted to prevent them from participating in a discussion of this item. Guidance is needed on the criteria on which to base such a decision. Adrian agreed to revisit his document in the light of this discussion, for consideration at the next Steering Group meeting in Copenhagen in April 2009.
Action: Adrian, Claire

5. Chief Executive Officer's report
Nick gave a brief report on the progress of the current strategic review of the Collaboration, and the recruitment process for the Editor-in-Chief. He referred to the Collaboration’s position within the context of the current 'credit crunch', which might affect the decisions about to be made at this meeting. He also referred to the healthy sales of The Cochrane Library. He reported little real progress with achieving a Europe-wide licence for The Library, but he would be part of a deputation that would be meeting with officials of the European Union within the next month.

6. Publication of The Cochrane Library

Deborah Dixon and Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert participated in the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October for discussion of their report on behalf of John Wiley and Sons.

6.1 Royalties: Deborah PG highlighted that royalties on sales and subscriptions to The Cochrane Library were still growing steadily but somewhat more slowly than last year, and were fourteen per cent up on last year for the first two quarters of this year. If there was no further growth by year end, projections were that this percentage over the whole year would be about eight per cent. The major purchasers of subscriptions were now governments, medical schools, universities, hospitals, and industry (including reprint purchases). Governments accounted for about twenty-one per cent; seventy per cent were accounted for by the other four categories. Deborah showed a table of national provisions (Australia, England, Finland, India, north and south Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Scotland, South America (BIREME/PAHO/WHO), Sweden, and Wales); and also reminded people of the Spanish version of The Cochrane Library. She showed a graph of publishing activity, and highlighted that about 20,000 new records had been published in the last year as part of CENTRAL.

6.2 Impact Factor: Deborah PG reported that there had been 5,230 citations in 2007 to new and substantively updated reviews published in 2005-06, putting the Collaboration's impact factor (IF) at 4.654, and placing the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) fourteenth out of a hundred journals in the category 'General and Internal Medicine', or eighth if considering total citations ("our impact footprint"). She then reported on an analysis that compared the CDSR's IF with that of the most highly cited journal in each of several disciplines; it was higher than that of the most highly cited journals related to many Cochrane Review Groups including, for example, tobacco addiction, oral health, back and neonatology. Deborah displayed graphs showing the journals in which Cochrane reviews were being cited most frequently. One abstract was being viewed every seven seconds of every hour of every day; three full text downloads were occurring every minute of every hour of every day (figures for Wiley InterScience only, not including other third-party providers such as OVID and the Spanish version). Deborah provided several other statistics and answered Steering Group members' questions.

6.3 Short print versions of Cochrane reviews: Deborah PG announced that, as requested and approved by the Publishing Policy Group in 2007, short print versions of Cochrane reviews were about to become available in Issue 4, 2008 of The Cochrane Library. Users would now have the option of printing three pdf versions of reviews: Abstract (comprising the abstract and plain language summary); Standard (comprising all elements of the review except the appendices and analysis graphs); and Full (the full review). Deborah explained that the Standard version could in some cases reduce the length of the print-out by about half. These three print options were about to become available for all reviews in RevMan 5. Deborah was thanked for the work that had gone into making these options available, and was asked to focus next on improving the display of diagnostic test reviews which was not yet optimum. Peter expressed thanks to John Wiley and Sons for hosting a meeting of the Publishing Policy Group in Chichester in June 2008, which he and the other members of the PPG had found most helpful.

7. Financial and legal matters:

7.1 Understanding the financial reports: Nick made a presentation to assist Steering Group members in interpreting the financial reports. He said that most issues in interpreting these reports were a question of timing. He asked members to take particular notice of the cash flow forecast (CFF) summary. The importance of being able to check the correctness of the amount of royalties gift aided from the Trading Company to the Charity was stressed; the Trading Company should not make any profit. Jon’s suggestion of providing more definitions of accountants’ terms in the Financial Statements was approved, and Donna undertook to follow up on this with the auditors in her capacity as Treasurer. Nick was asked to write up his presentation as a standalone document so that Steering Group members could refer to it in future.
Action: Donna, Nick

7.2 Current financial position and cash flow forecast: Donna clarified that the balance sheet shows what we have in the bank, and detailed profit and loss statements are provided for both the Charity and the Trading Company on a monthly basis, and are made available to the Steering Group within Archie. Donna explained that these are cumulative accounts: when assessing expenditure versus budget, budgetary allocations are made on a monthly basis: this can be confusing, as actual spending is often at irregular intervals. Therefore, to gain a better understanding of whether we are keeping within our budget it might be preferable to compare the actual versus budgeted amounts at the end of the financial year. Nick again highlighted the importance of the cash flow forecast. He explained that the Collaboration's income and expenditure should balance within the next couple of years, after implementation of the Steering Group's current planned strategy of reducing the Collaboration’s reserves.

7.3 Funding for core functions: Nick spoke to his background paper, in which he had made the following recommendations:

7.3.1 That a reasonable level of reserve be maintained in the cash balance, to meet unexpected events (c. 400k GBP): Nick had proposed the establishment of an operating reserve, on top of the contingency reserve, for the next couple of years, due to the current state of financial instability worldwide. These resources would be available to assist particular entities that hit short-term financial crises. It was suggested that the Steering Group revisit some of its previous funding decisions to make sure they were still valid. It was pointed out that criteria were still lacking for assessing how the funds were being used, and whether they were being used most efficiently. Consideration should be given to disinvesting in some things in order to release funds for new initiatives. This issue would be raised again at the second Steering Group meeting when revisiting any decisions made at this meeting with funding implications. Several Members raised concerns about the lack of flexibility that would result in rigid application of such an operational reserve, and there was no consensus that this recommendation should be adopted.

7.3.2 That the Opportunities Fund should now be closed, with no future funding rounds: A decision on this recommendation was deferred until discussion of Lucie's paper on the progress of funding programmes (item 7.5).

7.3.3 That, should the Opportunities Fund be resurrected in the future, new mechanisms for disbursement of funds be considered: A decision on this recommendation was deferred until discussion of Lucie's paper.

7.3.4 That a solution for the Collaboration’s editorial management software needs that delivers better value for money (VfM) for the Collaboration with a lower risk profile be explored: A decision on this recommendation was deferred until discussion of Item 8.

7.3.5 That, when the current provision contract for website and related services comes up for renewal, different options for provision of services be considered, but that no changes be made at the present time: This recommendation was approved.
Action: Nick

7.3.6 That the Steering Group should create sufficient room in the cash flow forecast to be able to provide additional resources to the Editor-in-Chief function as required: This recommendation was noted but a view was expressed that a formal costed request should be brought to the Steering Group once the Editor-in-Chief had clarified the needs of his role.

Nick was asked to expand his background paper for the next Steering Group meeting in Copenhagen in April 2009, to address the questions of what it takes to operate the Collaboration, what its core infrastructure needs are, and whether there are sufficient funds to meet those needs.
Action: Nick

7.4 Annual General Meeting (AGM) agenda, Trustees' Report and Financial Statements: Lorne took over chairing the meeting from Adrian at this point. He asked for ideas about items that might be raised in the open discussion session after the formal legal part of the AGM. Sonja suggested that the Steering Group might be asked to justify the amount of funding approved for the Editor-in-Chief. The issue of the distribution of core funds to entities might be raised because entities or individuals had been asked for ideas for spending the Collaboration’s funds at the previous AGM. It was noted that Donna would be giving a financial report at this meeting, and Adrian would be giving an update on the recruitment of the Editor-in-Chief, so both these issues would be addressed. Donna agreed to include a list of the projects that were being funded in the current year in her report.
Action: Adrian, Donna

7.5 Progress of funding programmes: Lorne thanked Lucie for her detailed report on the status of the Opportunities and Prioritisation Funds. Jon clarified the rating of past proposals to the Opportunities Fund: all proposals funded in the second round were in the fundable range but had not been rated as highly as the projects that had been funded in the first round. Jon made the point that grants under this Fund were ‘enabling’ rather than ‘rewarding’.

7.6 Continuation of the Opportunities Fund: Lorne asked whether there should be a third round of applications to the Opportunities Fund. He explained that the cash flow forecast (CFF) already included 100,000 GBP, and the decision was made to continue this Fund for a third round, and to announce this at the Annual General Meeting, providing a couple of examples of successful projects that had been funded via this means.
Action: Donna

7.7 Discretionary Fund: Jini reported that there had only been two applications to this Fund since the beginning of the current financial year on 1 April 2008. Monica drew attention to the Trading Company Directors’ report (item 32), in which they had recommended that the Fund should be maintained and publicised more widely. Jini would ask the editor of Cochrane News to remind people of the existence of the Fund.
Action: Jini

Thanks to outgoing Steering Group members
At the end of the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October, Adrian expressed thanks on behalf of the Steering Group, for their extremely hard work and invaluable contributions, to the outgoing members: Jon Deeks (Methods Group representative), Sally Green (Centre Representative), Peter Tugwell (Co-ordinating Editor representative) and Narelle Willis (Review Group Co-ordinator representative, who had resigned in July 2008). Adrian asked whether the outgoing members present had any comments they wished to make on their experience of being members of the Steering Group.

Jon said how much he had valued the ability to participate in a meeting of open minds. He expressed thanks to the Secretariat staff for their support during his time on the Steering Group. He said the challenge was to have less money in the bank in three years’ time. He expressed concern that the quality of Cochrane reviews had not yet been properly addressed, pointing out that the Collaboration’s reputation is founded on high quality reviews, and we have not yet achieved this across the board.

Sally expressed the importance of maintaining corporate memory. She thanked the staff of both the Secretariat and the Australasian Cochrane Centre. She felt she was leaving the Steering Group in really good hands. She thought the challenge now was for the Steering Group to be brave in making some difficult decisions, and putting processes in place to deal with the consequences of these. Fiscal responsibility was important, she said, as was the responsibility to spend enough to assure we continue to do the job well. Sally said it was also important to identify ways of ensuring that the organisation adheres to its principles of inclusivity.

Peter also thanked the Secretariat staff for their support. He said the particular challenge for him had been to convince the Co-ordinating Editors that there was a point in having a Steering Group, and felt that this had been achieved. He applauded the proposed opening up of the process for the election of Co-Chairs of the Steering Group.

8. Information Management System: IT consultant's brief and report

8.1 Monica Kjeldstrøm (as Director of the IMS) and Sonja Henderson (as a member of the IMS Support Team) declared their interest in this item. Mike Clarke, Convenor of the Information Management System Group (IMSG) and Convenor of the RevMan Advisory Group (RAG), attended the meeting for the first part of the discussion of this item, which Adrian chaired. Lorne explained the background to the commissioning of an independent IT consultant to assess the IMS and make recommendations. At its meeting in April 2008 in Vellore, the Steering Group had agreed that it needed such advice following a request for an unexpectedly large increase in funding of the IMS which did not contain a breakdown of the expenditure needed for discrete projects or parts of the IMS, such that it was unclear what would be achieved with the current and requested levels of funding. Recognising the valuable ongoing contribution made by the Nordic Cochrane Centre (NCC), the Steering Group had agreed to provide the additional funding needed from 1 April 2009 to keep the IMS development team at its current strength, following an unavoidable reduction in the support received by the IMS team from the NCC. However, irrespective of the question of value for money, the Steering Group did not feel in a position to increase IMS funding to the full amount that had been requested at its Vellore meeting, as the Collaboration did not have sufficient projected resources over the next five years.

8.2 Lorne highlighted the very strongly positive statements about the status of the IMS and its accomplishments in the consultant’s report, which referred to it as something many publishers would see as "a kind of holy grail of production workflows”. Lorne also noted that the report highlighted the risk to the Collaboration arising from the fact that the IMS depends on a few key individuals, the recommendation that this risk should be addressed by documenting key portions of the system, particularly the application programming interfaces (APIs) which specify how the program interacts with other software, and the consultant’s opinion that expanding the IMS team would not give adequate protection against the loss of key individuals. The consultant's opinion was noted that the Collaboration should not continue its current approach of producing all of its software in a bespoke manner because of the expense involved. The consultant had also recommended that new IMS software development should, where possible, make use of software already produced by others that could be integrated within the existing system, but also build upon the considerable work done already by the IMS team and the Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) that had already contributed to the workflow pilot project.

8.3 Mike asked if the comments that Monica and he had sent to Nick about the consultant’s report, on September 22 and 23 respectively, had been shared with other members of the Steering Group, in order to avoid any unnecessary repetition of the points during this discussion. They had not been circulated and Lorne and Nick were the only two people present, aside from Monica and Mike, who had seen them. Monica explained that she would not be making detailed comments but that she would like to make a statement before withdrawing from the meeting and leaving the discussion to the members of the Steering Group and Mike. At the Steering Group meeting in October 2007, Monica said, she had already highlighted the need for more resources for preparing system documentation and for core development (including the new workflow system). The proposal that she had brought to the Vellore meeting had covered these needs, including a request for more resources to make the IMS sustainable for the future. The proposal also included an invitation for an independent evaluation of the IMS to help the Steering Group assess the value of the IMS to The Cochrane Collaboration. Monica said she was pleased, therefore, to see the positive evaluation the IMS had received from the IT consultant, and that he had confirmed that the estimated budget was consistent with the system operation, core development and maintenance set out in her report for the Vellore meeting. She said she had taken exception to some comments that had been made about "the current crisis of the IMS", "poor software management" and "better value for money of the IMS". Nick reiterated the points he had made in his presentation about the requirement placed by the Charity Commission on Trustees to be prudent with the Charity’s resources, and the importance of seeking value for money in all Steering Group financial decisions, and reminded the meeting that this was not a specific comment about the IMS. He clarified that other comments he had made had not been directed at the work of, or management of, the IMS team but at the Collaboration's high-level management of software needs assessment, specification, procurement, and the management of this process across the range of software systems used by the Collaboration, thinking specifically of the way that the CENTRAL software requirement had been handled to date. Her comments completed, Monica left the meeting at this point.

8.4 Mike addressed the IT consultant’s report, which contained three options:

Option 1: To "scrap" the current IMS and wholly replace it with off-the-shelf software.

Option 2: To continue as is, with the team at the Rigshospitalet developing the functionality of the IMS within the Collaboration, expanded with further full-time employees, in accordance with the budget requested at the Vellore meeting.

Option 3: To reorientate the system towards a core of well-defined functionality, with other components assembled around the IMS core. These additional components would not necessarily be developed by the IMS team but would possibly be sourced from outside the Collaboration, with an assumption that this would cost less than Option 2.

The consultant's report had confirmed the value of the work done to date. It had essentially ruled out Option 1, and had confirmed the appropriateness of the budget in the Vellore request for continuing with the Collaboration’s current approach to IMS development. Mike expressed concern about the quality of the report in regard to the apparent disconnection between the opinions and evidence in the main body of the report and the recommendations, and the failure of the report to meet the brief agreed with the consultant. He noted the lack of a clear distinction between the opinion of the consultant, the opinion of people the consultant had spoken to, and the facts. Mike indicated that the Vellore budget request was to implement what the IMSG and the Steering Group had previously agreed, in terms of current and future development. He reminded the meeting that the budget presented in Vellore had been for an increase in funding from 1 April 2008, and that the shortfall was having a negative impact on the IMS. Mike said that in his opinion the inclusion of software developed by others (listed as Option 3 in the consultant's report) would not necessarily provide savings or a better system, and that this option would not necessarily be a lower risk. He expressed the opinion that, because healthcare programmers have different motivations for working on projects from programmers working in a commercial environment, the Collaboration was at less risk than commercial projects that key members of the IMS team would leave, and that the consultant did not appear to have taken this into account. He suggested that, as the IMS team was enlarged, people who joined it would share the commitment of the current members of the team to the Collaboration and its goals and would "stick with it". He said that the IMS was one of the most successful parts of the Collaboration, confirmed by the IT consultant’s report. Mike expressed further concerns about the completeness of the consultant's report, in particular the lack of detailed costings for the options outlined for further development. He thought that the costs for Option 1 might have been under-estimated, and noted that no costs had been provided for Option 3, making it impossible to know at this stage whether it would truly be cheaper or more cost-effective than Option 2 (the status quo). He recognised that more work was needed to cost out the implications of Option 3 and, if that option was adopted, to re-prioritise the work of the IMS team and others. Mike strongly supported the view that what had been done in the IMS up to now was at the forefront in this field, and considered that continuing with the status quo (Option 2) was the only viable way to proceed. He pointed out that his job did not depend directly on the IMS, so he did not feel conflicted in expressing these opinions, above and beyond his work along with others in the IMSG and RAG over the last several years to bring the IMS to its current state.

8.5 Adrian returned to the concern about the risks posed by a few individuals holding all the information, allied with the lack of documentation, and asked why bringing in outside sources for certain components would not provide some protection against this. Mike responded that outside components would need to be integrated, and that having knowledge of this integration within a small team might also be risky. Lorne pointed out that a lot of progress had been made in the area of software integration and interoperability in the last few years, so that this option, while not attractive when the current IMS structure had been planned, was now feasible in the opinion of the consultant.

8.6 Attention was drawn to Recommendation 9 in the consultant’s report which called for an improved process for gathering and prioritising IMS requirements according to the Collaboration’s strategic goals.

8.7 It was noted that scaling back on IMS activities while continuing the current bespoke approach to development would be another option for cutting costs. Mike was asked if there was any room for compromise between the increase in funding requested and the Collaboration's ability to pay, and whether a middle course could not be plotted along the lines that had been proposed. Mike replied that in his opinion the only way forward was that proposed in Vellore, if the Collaboration wished to continue to develop the IMS in the way that had been agreed previously. He said that if Option 3 were to be agreed on, he would resign as IMSG Convenor, after five years in this role, because he was unwilling to devote his time to a process that would dismantle the current IMS, would delay the implementation of the previously agreed plans, and would not necessarily be more cost-effective than Option 2. He also disagreed with the premise that the Collaboration could not afford Option 2. In his opinion, Option 3 would not provide savings and would not provide a more robust programming system; however, he recognised that it was for the Steering Group to make decisions about the use of resources and the strategic direction of the Collaboration and its infrastructure. Adrian thanked Mike very much for his input, and Mike left the meeting at this point.

8.8 Several shortcomings of the IT consultant’s report were identified. It was highlighted that the report had not included any information or costs of the off-the-shelf services and components that could be used; without these, some members thought that the Steering Group could not make an informed decision. Costs had been provided for Options 1 and 2 but not for Option 3, so it was not yet possible for the Steering Group to make a comparison, and come to a decision as to which option would provide the best value for money. It was agreed that the consultant should be asked to provide the missing costings as he had not yet fulfilled his brief in this respect, although it was suggested that the additional information was unlikely to change the core recommendations of the report. The large absolute amount of increased funding requested for the IMS (and proportionally of the Collaboration's income) was noted, as was the possibility that these costs would continue to rise over time if the current approach was maintained. Attention was drawn to the Steering Group's responsibility to consider whether it could justify spending this amount of money in the light of the Collaboration's other needs for funding. The consultant's report, although light on Option 3 detail, had simply stated the obvious, that there are only three options: to keep going as is, to abandon all the IMS and entity work, or to use what has been developed by the IMS team and combine with external software to develop a sustainable long-term option. Concerns were raised about the lack of detailed budget justification in the IMS funding request presented in Vellore, the lack of any indication of prioritisation of the activities for which additional funding had been requested, and how CRG (and other entity) requests for prioritisation were actualised. It would have been reassuring if the IMS team had come back and said they appreciated that the budget request represented a big increase in a major expense for the Collaboration, and had provided details on costs and expected benefits for each key element of the project. Several Steering Group members pointed out that their experience of software development in healthcare research was different from Mike’s, and that programmers were as likely to leave for other jobs as in any other sector.
Action: Nick

8.9 Lorne noted that the plan for moving forward with the consultant’s report included a request for the IMSG’s reaction, that a meeting of this group was scheduled for 13 November, and that their recommendations would be considered at the subsequent Executive meeting. It was also noted that the incoming Editor-in-Chief would have a key responsibility for the editorial processes and software systems used within the Collaboration. Concern was expressed that commercial software could be highly counter-productive, and there was some support for negotiating towards keeping the IMS doing all the development. It was suggested that the IMS team be given a maximum budget and asked to work within that, together with a specification of what could and could not be done with that funding, and how much additional funding would be required for specific pieces of additional work. It was agreed to ask the IMS team to consider this suggestion. In the meantime, the Steering Group decision in Vellore would be upheld, to provide the additional funding needed to maintain total IMS funding at its current level. It was pointed out that the contractual process had been modified since the current IMS contract had been signed; when the contract with the NCC was renewed it would include more explicit details on deliverables and on the management framework for the project. The Steering Group was reminded that it is the Rigshospitalet rather than the Collaboration that owns the copyright to the IMS software.

8.10 The Steering Group agreed on the following messages to be conveyed to the IMS team and the IMSG:

8.10.1 The additional funding requested over four years (April 2008 to March 2012) is beyond what can be provided, given the Collaboration’s current financial circumstances. However, the Steering Group will continue to reassess the ability to provide additional funding to the IMS as the Collaboration's financial situation is monitored at each Steering Group meeting, and will continue to consider detailed further, well-justified proposals from the IMS Director as a high priority for additional funding should it become available.

8.10.2 The Steering Group will ask the IMS team to provide an itemized budget showing, at differing levels of funding between that originally requested and that currently committed by the Steering Group, details of, and the rationale for, what can be achieved at each different level.
Action: Adrian, Lorne

8.10.3 The Steering Group is concerned about the risks noted in the consultant's report arising from a lack of documentation of the system, and agreed with the IMS team that documentation, particularly of APIs (Application Program Interfaces), is a high priority.

8.10.4 The Steering Group invites the opinion of the IMSG on how IMS development activities should be prioritized, given the Collaboration's current funding realities, and on the options presented by the consultant for future IMS development. Recommendations from the IMSG meeting on 13 November will be discussed by the Steering Group’s Executive at its subsequent meeting.

8.10.5 A short-term ad hoc sub-group of the Steering Group (Adrian, Julian, Lorne, Nick and Ruth) will be charged with working to move things forward, optimizing communications between the Steering Group, the IMS and the IMSG.

Action: Adrian, Lorne

8.10.6 The consultant will be asked to provide additional information on the anticipated costs of the various options in the report, especially Option 3.

Action: Nick

9. Cambridge training meeting; training for new RevMan 5 features
Steve spoke to the background paper that he and Veronica Pitt had provided, summarising current training activities within the Collaboration, and highlighting the gaps in training that had been identified, and the proposed strategies for addressing training needs. Lorne thanked Steve and Veronica for this, and congratulated all involved in this important meeting. Steve explained that the training working group would help to manage the process rather than undertaking the training itself.

10. Centralised Updating Officer pilot project
Rob explained that this Collaboration-funded pilot project had identified that 58 per cent of Cochrane reviews were older than two years. It had become clear that the willingness of authors to be involved in the updating of their reviews was essential, and that there should be a better prioritisation process for updating reviews. One of the benefits of this project, he said, had been a quality assessment of reviews, which would inform the work of the incoming Editor-in-Chief. The model of a Centralised Updating Officer could be a good use of core funds to support entities in due course, although it was pointed out that only a small number of out-of-date reviews could be updated in this way. Lorne underlined that this was a very high priority item, and reminded Steering Group members that other Collaboration-funded projects were also adding to our knowledge in this area. Sonja and Roger described the internal processes that had been mounted for updating their own Groups’ reviews. The decision about appointing a centralised Updating Officer was referred to the incoming Editor-in-Chief.

11. CENTRAL progress report from the TSCs' executive group

This item was for information. Gail Higgins’ liaison role had initially been conceived as a short-term role in support of the interim measures for CENTRAL. However, a significant time commitment was still required and the adequacy of funding for this role should be revisited.

Action: Lorne, Nick

12. Diagnostic test accuracy reviews

This item was discussed at the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October while Jon was still present. Jon reported that Issue 4, 2008 of The Cochrane Library would contain the first Cochrane review of diagnostic test accuracy. A paper from the Handbook editors and colleagues had been accepted by the Annals of Internal Medicine for publication before the end of the year as the launch article about the Collaboration’s new initiative. A considerable number of titles of reviews of this type had now been registered. The composition of the Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial Team would come to the Publishing Policy Group for approval. Jon reported that five Review Group editorial teams had been trained to date in preparing this type of review. The Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) would be starting a similar training programme shortly. Jon had been holding discussions with the Directors of the Canadian Cochrane Centre and the US Cochrane Center with the aim of furthering the production of this type of review. A research fellow in Baltimore had been identified to take the lead in this, and a meeting of interested parties would take place during the Colloquium, as well as a DTA training workshop. Other training events were being organised in Australia, and in Birmingham, UK, in July 2009.

Action: Jon

13. Information Management System (IMS) status report

Lorne thanked Monica for her status report on the IMS (see also item 8 above).

14. Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) - third progress report

Lorne thanked Rob for the third progress report on the CESU, which was for information and needed no discussion.

15. Register of Reports of Diagnostic Test Accuracy - fourth progress report
Thanks were recorded to Ruth Mitchell for her progress report, and for all the hard work that had gone into developing the Register. Jonathan was asked to convey the Steering Group's appreciation to her.
Action: Jonathan

16. CENTRAL Request for Proposals (RFP)
Ruth explained that the CENTRAL RFP was currently with the TSCs’ executive for signing off. Once they had done so, Nick would issue the RFP both externally and also internally via the entity mailing lists and CCInfo.
Action: Ruth, Nick

17. Evaluating Evidence Aid

Discussion of this item was deferred to the next Executive meeting on 11 November 2008, due to shortage of time at this meeting for a full discussion.
Action: Diana

18. Principles for considering new products for development
The background paper for this item contained Nick’s summary from the discussion held in Vellore in April 2008, which the Steering Group had not yet officially approved. Nick pointed out that John Wiley and Sons had first refusal on developing new products. If anyone had comments on the background document to this item, or suggestions for amendment, they were asked to send them to Nick as soon as possible. He would revise the document and bring it to the Executive for approval and dissemination to all entities.
Action: Nick

18.1 Feedback on Duodecim proposal: Roger reported on the discussion of this proposal at the recent Co-ordinating Editors’ meeting. He thought the proposal represented an excellent opportunity to bring evidence to the patient’s bedside. Fourteen Co-ordinating Editors had agreed to work with Duodecim on piloting the proposal. To include Cochrane content in this system, Duodecim already pays our publisher a licensing fee, and the Collaboration receives a percentage in royalties.

19. Web developments
Dave Booker, web development manager, participated in the second Steering Group meeting on 6 October for discussion of this item. In addition to having provided a background paper, he made a presentation about developments to date and plans for the future. He recommended that the Steering Group prioritise internal communication for dynamic planning, and asked members to try to inform themselves about 'Health 2.0'. Dave left the meeting at this point and there was brief discussion about membership of the Web Content Advisory Committee: this will be considered as part of the current strategic review of the Collaboration, and should be seen as an issue of management of one of the core functions of the Collaboration. It was agreed to continue to ask Dave for brief written reports to the Publishing Policy Group. In his background paper, Dave had recommended the following:

19.1 That the Steering Group establishes a formal seat for a Web Team representative in an appropriate Steering Group sub- or advisory group or the editorial board, or proposes alternative communication enhancements.

19.2 That the Steering Group communicates any suggested changes in remit of future web developments evolving out of the current strategic review of the Collaboration.

It was agreed that these two recommendations should be brought to a future Executive meeting as part of a broader discussion about attendance of non-Steering Group members at Steering Group meetings (see item 4.2 above).
Action: Nick

20. Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for The Cochrane Collaboration
This item was discussed at the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October (during which Monica was present), in the context of the employment package to be offered to the incoming EiC [paragraph 20.3], and also at the second Steering Group meeting on 6 October (during which Monica was not present) [paragraphs 20.1 and 20.2]).

20.1 Progress on recruitment: Adrian reported that following on from agreement at the Steering Group meeting in Vellore to recruit an Editor-in-Chief, a nine-person search committee had been set up (Adrian, Jonathan, Lisa, Lorne, Peter, Prathap Tharyan, Deborah Dixon, Doug Altman and Richard Smith). Working closely with Nick, this committee had identified, following interview, a firm of consultants to work with them, from the nine firms which had expressed an interest. The consultants had done a very good job. The committee had suggested a list of names to approach and another list of potential candidates, with some overlap between the two. The consultants, RSA, had spoken to a large number of those on the lists, and drawn up a long list of potential candidates, on the basis of which curricula vitaes (CVs) had been requested. Advertisements had also been placed in the BMJ and JAMA, as well as on the Collaboration website and in CCInfo. Weekly teleconferences had taken place between the committee and the consultants, and a shortlist of about a dozen people had been drawn up. Those people had been asked for a vision statement for The Cochrane Library. On the basis of their statements and CVs, six people were invited for interview. Five of them had subsequently been interviewed by a subset of the search committee (Adrian, Lorne, Peter, Doug Altman, Deborah Dixon and Richard Smith) at Heathrow Airport, London, on 30 September 2008. The quality of the field had been very high and all those interviewed had been considered ‘appointable’.

Adrian asked for ratification of the committee’s choice of preferred candidate. He had arranged for circulation to the Steering Group of this candidate’s CV, vision statement and interview presentation; these papers were collected in immediately after the discussion and shredded. The preferred candidate's two references had been taken up and were very positive. The Steering Group approved the search committee’s preferred candidate. Lorne thanked Adrian for leading the recruitment drive, and Adrian thanked Nick for his facilitation of the process, which Jonathan said had worked extremely well and had been conducted in a timely fashion. The name of the successful candidate would be publicised as soon as possible once the candidate had accepted the position and a remuneration package had been agreed.
Action: Adrian, Lorne, Nick

20.2 Editorial accountability and conflict resolution: Lorne thanked Peter for his paper on editorial accountability. It was agreed that the successful candidate for this position should have input to discussion of this matter. A balance needed to be achieved between accountability and editorial independence. In the case of any serious conflicts between the Editor-in-Chief and the Co-ordinating Editors, these would come to the Steering Group; however, the Editor-in-Chief would need somewhere to go in situations of conflict with the Steering Group itself. This matter should be deferred until the Editor-in-Chief is in post.
Action: Adrian, Lorne, Nick

20.3 Secretariat staff pensions: This subject was raised at the first Steering Group meeting, both in the context of the terms of the employment package to be offered to the Editor-in-Chief but also with respect to existing Secretariat staff. The current staff (Claire, Diana, Jini, Lucie and Nick) left the room for this discussion, which Sally minuted as follows:

The matter of a consistent approach to the remuneration packages for Cochrane Collaboration employees was discussed in light of the upcoming appointment of an Editor-in-Chief and associated staff. Jon Deeks summarised previous work undertaken while he had been Treasurer, and decisions implemented when organisational changes had been made within the NHS, resulting in Secretariat pay awards being reviewed in March 2006 and scaled according to the relevant NHS pay scales and points.

Should the Collaboration employ more than five full-time members of staff (as had become the case in July 2008), as an employer it was now obligated under UK law to offer a pension scheme but not necessarily required to contribute to it. One member of staff, on secondment from the NHS for historical reasons, was currently a member of the NHS pension scheme to which employer contributions were being made.

The Steering Group agreed that the Collaboration should be contributing to a pension scheme for all Secretariat employees. It should therefore offer a pension scheme to new employees, and should work out a mechanism for making pension contributions for existing staff. The Steering Group also wished to have fairness among employees. In the past, this had been addressed by arranging to provide pay at a higher 'take home' rate for those without a contributory pension scheme, noting that this would need to be revisited for any employees who had reached the top point of a pay scale without pension.

The Steering Group agreed that, for new employees, its preferred option was to commence staff on an award inclusive of a contributory pension scheme; however, the option to negotiate an alternative award would be allowed. Existing staff should be given the option of moving to a contributory pension scheme. (Note: Should an existing staff member choose to receive a pension contribution from the Collaboration, this might mean a reduction in 'take home' monies, while maintaining the same award.)

It was agreed that it would be inappropriate for the entire Steering Group to have access to the details of the Secretariat staff's employment conditions; the Co-Chairs and current and previous Treasurers were therefore asked to follow up on this issue, obtaining appropriate financial guidance. Lorne undertook to feed back the discussion and outcomes to the Secretariat staff.
Action: Adrian, Donna, Jon, Lorne

21. Steering Group Chairs: possible revision of eligibility criteria and election arrangements
Adrian had provided a background paper for this item. The current arrangement is that only Steering Group members are eligible for election as Co-Chair. The paper outlined two alternatives: the first opened eligibility to all active members of the Collaboration; the second widened eligibility but only to past and present members of the Steering Group, its sub-groups and advisory groups. After discussion, a third option was preferred, that is, that any active member of the Collaboration who already holds or has held a leadership role within the Collaboration should now be eligible for election as Co-Chair. Three active members of the Collaboration should nominate, one of whom should be a current Steering Group member, who should only nominate one candidate. The whole Steering Group would make the selection, rather than having a shortlisting process or a search committee, as suggested in the background paper. A Co-Chair appointed from outside the Steering Group would then become a trustee after her/his appointment had been ratified at the following Annual General Meeting. The Executive should consider the detail of implementing these decisions in time for the next round of Co-Chair elections. For practical reasons, consideration should be given to selecting the Co-Chair during Colloquia rather than at the Steering Group’s mid-year meetings as at present.
Action: Adrian, Claire, Jini

22. Status of proposal to establish a Nursing Care Network

There was extensive discussion of the issues surrounding this proposal. Rob explained that the Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG) had originally thought that the application could be approved subject to addressing some relatively small issues that had come up during the MRG review of the application. However, the MRG had passed the proposal to the Steering Group because of concerns raised by representatives of a number of other entities who would need to work with this new network in order for it to be effective. Sally explained that she was conflicted as the reference Centre Director for the applicants of this proposal; however, she thought that the most important question was whether or not a Nursing Care Network would facilitate the involvement of those involved in nursing care in the work of the Collaboration. Steve also thought he was in a position of conflict because of his role as a member of JBI’s Committee of Management; he considered that resistance within the Collaboration to this application was the key concern.

Adrian explained that the application was not from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) itself, although approximately forty per cent of the individuals listed in the application were JBI members, Alan Pearson (the proposed entity leader) being the Institute's executive director. As a result of this connection, some of Adrian's discussion with Alan had involved the JBI’s plans and priorities. Alan had reported that JBI no longer produced intervention reviews, but encouraged authors to work through the Collaboration to do so. Much of JBI’s activity involved dissemination of the results of reviews. Adrian went on to say that there should be no difference between nursing care reviews and other Cochrane reviews.

It was agreed that a Nursing Care Network should be able to be established, as the principle of profession-based Networks/Fields had already been established at the previous Steering Group meeting in Vellore. The application should proceed according to the usual process for registering a new entity, with modifications and clarifications that would address the concerns that had been raised. Adrian, Jonathan, Peter and Roger would meet with representatives of other entities during the Colloquium to assure them that their concerns had been fully appreciated.
Action: Adrian, Jonathan, Peter, Roger

At the second Steering Group meeting on 6 October Adrian reported that he had conveyed the decision to recommend registration of this Network to interested parties, subject to satisfactory responses from those proposing the Nursing Care Network to several concerns that had been raised. Ruth stressed that those who had expressed concerns about the proposal had given assurances that they would work professionally with all those involved.

23. Strategic review of The Cochrane Collaboration
Jeremy Grimshaw and MaryEllen Schaafsma participated in the second Steering Group meeting on 6 October for discussion of this item. Jeremy asked for advice about what should be done with the report that he would be presenting to the Steering Group by the end of February 2009. It was agreed that it should be circulated to all Cochrane entities and posted on the strategic review website at that point, even though it might not be the final report. The recommendations of the report would be the subject of the half-day strategic session in Copenhagen on 24 April 2009, and would be a major component for Steering Group discussion during the Singapore Colloquium, and on the agendas of entity meetings there. It would also be a major item on the agenda of the 2009 Annual General Meeting, and protected time should be allowed for this, inviting members from all types of entity to participate. Steve would convey this to the organisers of the next Colloquium.
Action: Jini, Steve

24. Proposed membership of Steering Group sub- and advisory groups
The proposed membership of the Steering Group's sub- and advisory groups was agreed to. With effect from the Annual General Meeting on 5 October 2008 when they would become trustees of The Cochrane Collaboration (registered as a charity in the UK), Julian Higgins had agreed to join the Executive; Sonja Henderson, Steve McDonald and Roger Soll had agreed to join the Publishing Policy Group. In addition, Sonja would represent the Steering Group on the Handbook Advisory Group with Donna, Julian would do so on the Quality Advisory Group with Janet, and Roger would do so on the Feedback Management Advisory Group with Lisa. The Secretariat would update the appropriate mailing lists and the 'Structure, remit and membership of groups accountable to the Steering Group' on the website as soon as possible.
Action: Diana, Claire

25. Elections Working Group (EWG) recommendations arising from pilot use of Archie in 2008 elections
Lorne thanked those involved in implementing the pilot use of Archie in the 2008 Steering Group elections. The EWG had made the following recommendations:

25.1 Maintaining a centralised system of administering the elections: The Steering Group approved this.

25.2 The results of the strategic review of the Collaboration would be available before the next election for a CRG 'at large' representative in 2010, so membership of the Steering Group might change. The EWG therefore had no recommendation at this time on how to compile a list of constituent voters for the 'at large' representative position. It was agreed that this issue would be revisited once the results of the strategic review were known. Additional temporary staffing might be needed in the Secretariat to help in compiling the voters' list.

25.3 The contact details of all members of Methods Groups should be included in Archie to facilitate voting. The Steering Group recognised that most Methods Groups did not have the resources to enter this information into Archie themselves. Jini offered Secretariat resources to do this, if Julian would arrange for the data to be sent to her. The individual Methods Groups should then undertake to keep these details up to date. A check should be made before entering any new Methods Group member into Archie in case there is already an entry for that person.
Action: Jini, Julian

In addition, it was agreed that the current system of aggregated votes should be maintained. The election process should remain unchanged until after the results of the strategic review are known, with the exception of reducing the voting deadline from six weeks to four, to allow more time for newly elected members to arrange to attend the Steering Group meeting during the following Colloquium. However, it was agreed not to extend the early registration deadline to newly elected candidates to enable them to register for the Colloquium at the 'earlybird' rate. Claire was asked to convey these decisions to the EWG, with the Steering Group's thanks for their work in further refining the Steering Group election process.
Action: Claire

26. Monitoring and Registration Group report

Rob reported that Centres, Methods Groups and Networks/Fields had been monitored this year. In its report to the Steering Group, the MRG had made the following recommendations:

26.1 Handsearching: That the Information Retrieval Methods Group be asked for advice about the costs and benefits of handsearching by Centres.
It was agreed to ask the Methods Group's advice on the utility of handsearching generally.
Action: Rob, Hans

26.2 Cost of training for Cochrane authors: That if RevMan 5 training is given to members of Cochrane entities or to Cochrane authors, it should be provided either free of charge or at a minimal fee for cost recovery. If approved, this recommendation should be communicated to Centres and Branches, and Jini should be asked to add it to The Cochrane Manual.
It was agreed to ask Centres for their views about charging for training.

Action: Rob, Hans

26.3 Number of training workshops offered by Centres:That Centres should provide as much training for Cochrane activities as is appropriate and possible, since training is one of their core functions. If approved, this should be communicated to Centre and Branch Directors.
It was agreed to ask Centres for their recommendations in this regard.
Action: Rob, Hans

26.4 Centres and Branches: That other nodes of activity attached to Centres should operate as part of the Centre and not label themselves as distinct 'Cochrane entities'. The MRG asked the Steering Group to communicate this explicit recommendation to Centres, ask them to ensure that their nodes of activity adhere to this recommendation, and label themselves as follows: the [name] Site of the [name] Cochrane Centre.
It was agreed to ask Centres for their views of this recommendation.
Action: Rob, Hans

26.5 Core functions/expectations of Branches: That Branch core functions should be established as follows: To effectively carry out core function(s) allocated to the Branch by the parent Centre; to promote the Collaboration in the geographic area for which the Branch is responsible; and to provide training and support to contributors or potential contributors in the geographic area for which the Branch is responsible.
The Steering Group agreed that Centres’ input should be obtained, but that the Steering Group’s recommendation should be conveyed to them that a minimum subset of a Centre’s core functions should be fulfilled by its Branch(es).
Action: Rob, Hans

26.6 Availability of Methods Groups' resources: That Methods Groups should be asked to make clear on their websites the resources that are available. The Steering Group accepted this recommendation, which should be conveyed to Methods Group Convenors. In addition, all entities should be strongly encouraged to maintain an up-to-date website, and to update their modules at least once a year. Katrina agreed to convey this to Field Convenors, and Julian to Methods Group Convenors.
Action: Rob, Hans, Katrina, Julian

26.7 Entity performance indicators: The MRG continues to develop performance indicators to assess the performance of entities, and was encouraged to spend time at its annual meeting in developing criteria for addressing the health of entities.
Action: Rob, Hans

27. Invitation to host the Steering Group and Centre Directors’ meetings in Auckland, New Zealand, in late March 2010
The Steering Group accepted this invitation, and Steve offered to let Cindy Farquhar and colleagues know. Lisa agreed to communicate this decision to the Centre Directors.
Action: Steve, Lisa

28. Reports from entity representatives:

28.1 Cochrane Review Group issues: Roger reported that the Co-ordinating Editors had committed to working with the Summary of Findings tables. Sonja reported that the RGCs were keen to support the training initiative; RevMan 5 conversions had been going well, although there were still many reviews to be converted by the November 2008 deadline; further piloting of workflow systems was eagerly anticipated. Ruth reported the TSCs' keenness for the CENTRAL RFP to be issued; their concerns about losing the CD version of The Cochrane Library had been communicated to the publishers; the issue of the variable quality of search strategies had been discussed. She said that TSCs should be encouraged to see themselves as methodologists within the Collaboration, who are responsible for and actively engaged in quality improvement. Nick said that the CD version of The Cochrane Library would be on the agendas of the Publishing Policy Group and the Editor-in-Chief; he remarked that Wiley could have pulled out of producing the CD at any time in the last five years, but had been enormously faithful to the Collaboration as The Cochrane Library now fills almost five CDs, for less than 250 subscribers.

28.2 Centre issues: Lisa reported on the discussion among Centre Directors concerning problems with the feedback system which she had already conveyed to the Feedback Management Advisory Group (FMAG). John Carlisle, FMAG Convenor, had done a study and found that over forty per cent of the feedback received had never been published in The Cochrane Library. Membership of the FMAG is being revisited. The issue had been raised that Colloquium speakers are not asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest: this has been conveyed to the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group. Access to different versions of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is an issue for Wiley: the online version is not as easily searchable as it used to be; people like to access it in different ways and would prefer a PDF or Word version – these are available to everyone in Archie. A full Contents list is now available, and Julian also has someone working on creating an index for the PDF version of the Handbook.

28.3 Methods Group issues: Julian said there were no issues to raise.

28.4 Network/Field issues: Katrina said that Networks/Fields have a major role in knowledge translation which isn’t adequately reflected in the current list of their core functions. They would therefore be revisiting their objectives to indicate those that fulfil core functions, and would then 'renegotiate' with the Monitoring and Registration Group the priorities put on their core activities.

29. Future Steering Group meetings:

29.1 Copenhagen - 24 to 26 April 2009: There was nothing to report about this meeting.

29.2 Singapore - 10 and 13 October 2009: Steve reported that Edwin Chan and Joey Choo of the Singapore organising committee were attending the Freiburg Colloquium and learning all they could. Steve and other members of the Australasian Cochrane Centre would be supporting the organising committee, as would members of the Secretariat and others.

30. Future Cochrane Colloquia:

30.1.1 Singapore: 11-14 October 2009: There was nothing new to report about this Colloquium.

30.1.2 Stipend top-up proposal: In response to the background paper from Steve McDonald and Jordi Pardo, the Co-Convenors of the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group, the Steering Group gave in principle agreement to providing central funds to 'top up' stipends to 16,000 GBP in years when the surplus from the previous year's Colloquium (plus any money raised through sponsorship) is less than this amount. Jini, as Secretariat Administrator, had agreed to continue to manage and administer stipend funds centrally, in accordance with the decisions of the stipend committees for consumers and for those resident in developing countries, with support from Caroline Rouse, the UK Cochrane Centre's administrator. Steve reported that Caroline, who had administered the stipend funds for the Dublin and São Paulo Colloquia in 2006 and 2007, and had assisted Jini in administering the stipend funds for the Freiburg Colloquium in 2008, had kindly agreed to take on a more central role in the administration of this process. Steve had asked Caroline to cost out her time for this work, and would pass on to her the Steering Group's appreciation and thanks.
Action: Nick, Steve

30.2 Keystone: 18-22 October 2010: Nick reported that the Steering Group of The Campbell Collaboration was considering holding their 2010 Colloquium in parallel with the Cochrane Colloquium. Jini would be investigating the feasibility of the Cochrane Steering Group meeting taking place in Denver the day before the start of the Colloquium (i.e. on 17 October 2010), in order to acclimatise Steering Group members to the high altitude in Keystone.
Action: Jini

30.3 Lack of invitations to host the Colloquium in 2011: The Centre Directors and the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) had discussed the lack of any invitations so far to host the 2011 Colloquium, although several people were considering it. It was agreed to wait and see whether any invitations were forthcoming. Steve said that the cut-off point was between now and the Singapore Colloquium: if there were no invitations by then, a decision would have to be made about a 2011 Colloquium. He would update the Steering Group in Copenhagen on any invitations the CPAG received.
Action: Steve

31. Archiving in The Cochrane Collaboration

Steve McDonald and Ruth Foxlee spoke to this paper, which had been prepared by Jo Garcia of the Social Science Research Unit in London. Jo had been funded by The Wellcome Trust to undertake a preliminary assessment of The Cochrane Collaboration's need to archive its materials. Thanks were expressed to Jo for her work on behalf of the Collaboration in this important area. It was agreed to establish a working committee to take the lead on this matter, headed by Lucie Jones in the Secretariat. Ruth had asked TSCs for a volunteer to join this committee, which would include Steve to represent the Steering Group, and Jini to administer the project.
Action: Jini, Lucie, Ruth, Steve

32. Trading Company Directors
In accordance with the Trading Company Directors' recommendation, it was agreed that Nick should ask Wiley to provide the Steering Group and the Trading Company Directors with a breakdown of the royalties by source and type of income, and the table of national provisions, on a regular basis in future. Lorne expressed thanks to Monica, who was stepping down at the AGM as a Director, for her involvement in this role for the past nine years: her input would be missed.
Action: Nick

33. Matters arising from the minutes of the previous face-to-face meeting in Vellore, not already dealt with

There were no matters arising from the minutes of the previous Steering Group meeting in Vellore. However, two post hoc notes had been added to these minutes since they had been formally approved: items 29.1.2.1 (re the proposed budget for the Editor-in-Chief) and 29.3 (correcting a clerical error which had shown an underspend as an overspend in one of the advisory group budgets). These amendments were approved, and Jini was asked to arrange for an amended version of the minutes to be put onto the website.
Action: Jini

34. Allocation of funds to specific proposals
Lorne drew attention to the current financial position, and the fact that it was now somewhat healthier than it had looked at the Vellore Steering Group meeting, primarily because royalties had been higher than projected. He noted the questions that Jon Deeks had raised about the amount included in the cash flow forecast (CFF) as the 'Opening balance from 2007 audit', and indicated that if Jon’s analysis was correct, there might be slightly more funds available for use by the Collaboration. Nick agreed to check with the accountants, and report back to the Steering Group. Donna noted that estimates for the CFF were based on a fairly conservative approach, and that the Steering Group frequently under-estimated income and over-estimated expenses. This was seen as a prudent approach, to be continued.
Action: Nick
Post hoc note: After clarification with the Collaboration's accountants, the opening balance, based on the audited amount for ‘cash in bank and at hand’, was found to be broadly correct.

Funding decisions made at the current Steering Group meeting were reviewed. The decision to offer another round of the Opportunities Fund would not affect the CFF, as the third round had already been included for forecasting purposes. The CFF would be adjusted to include the implications of the Steering Group's decisions to provide 21,000 GBP for one year for ongoing development of the Cochrane Methodology Register, and to provide top-up funds for Colloquium stipends from core funds on an annual basis as necessary. The detailed costs of the incoming Editor-in-Chief and supporting office were still unknown, but would probably come in at approximately the figure that had been estimated. In addition, several agenda items from the current meeting might have potential funding implications, even though no funding requests had been considered at this meeting other than the two items mentioned above. Additional potential items for future funding included the strategic review of the Collaboration, the reports on training and on the updating of reviews, the ongoing measures for CENTRAL, and the possible creation of a short-term operational reserve during the current global financial crisis.
Action: Nick

The Steering Group then revisited the decision made in Vellore to maintain funding for the IMS at the current level for one additional year, with an increase to replace a portion of the funding previously provided by the NCC (recognising the continued and generous contribution made by them). Given the above adjustments to the CFF and the need to provide stable funding to the IMS, the Steering Group agreed to extend the funding at the level agreed in Vellore for a full three years rather than for a single year (i.e. from April 2009 to March 2012). In addition, the Steering Group identified an additional 70,000 GBP per annum that might become available for an increase in IMS funding in future, but that could not be definitely committed at present. The possibility of this additional funding, in response to detailed costings presented within a well-justified proposal, should be communicated to the IMS team and the IMSG for their consideration as they develop recommendations for proceeding.
Action: Adrian, Lorne

35. Decisions made at this meeting to be communicated to entities

Steering Group members were asked not to feed back to their constituents about their discussions until the minutes had been formally approved and distributed to all entities, at which time Steering Group members should distribute relevant information to their constituents. They were reminded that only urgent action items agreed by the Co-Chairs should be actioned immediately. In view of this, Sonja highlighted the need to provide information on the status of the IMS to Review Group Co-ordinators (RGCs) as soon as possible, given that Stage 1 of the workflow pilot project was already underway. The Co-Chairs agreed to provide a statement on the status of the IMS as soon as possible after the Colloquium.
Action: Adrian, Lorne

36. Content for the next Steering Group Bulletin

Lucie and Nick would work together on identifying decisions reported in these minutes that should be included in the next Bulletin.
Action: Lucie, Nick

37. Environmental sustainability
The issue of environmental sustainability is a standing item on the agendas of all meetings of the Steering Group and its sub-groups, and of the Trading Company Directors. It was pointed out that as the result of the decision to hold the mid-year Steering Group meeting in New Zealand in March 2010, the Australian Steering Group members' proximity would mean a reduction in carbon emissions when travelling to this meeting. It was agreed that environmental sustainability should be a factor in deciding who should attend Steering Group meetings in future, in addition to the Steering Group members and Secretariat staff.

38. Spreadsheet of Steering Group members’ outstanding action items

Lorne reminded everyone that the purpose of the spreadsheet was to serve as a useful reminder to them of the things they had undertaken to do. He encouraged everyone to let Diana know when they had completed any action items assigned to them, so that she could update the spreadsheet. Diana would be adding a brief description of Action points to the spreadsheet in future, to enable Steering Group members to identify quickly what they had undertaken to do.
Action: Everyone

39. Any other business:

39.1 Cochrane Methodology Register: This item was discussed at the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October, while Jon Deeks was present. Jon pointed out that the requested funding from the Opportunities Fund for the Cochrane Methodology Register had not been granted as it did not fit the grant criteria, as had been discussed at the previous Steering Group meeting in Vellore. The request for 21,000 GBP for one year for developing the Cochrane Methodology Register was now approved; this should be added to the cash flow forecast. Jon said it was likely that funds for developing the Register further might be sought from the Collaboration at some point in the future.
Action: Nick

39.2 Date of next Executive meeting: The Executive will hold its next teleconference on Tuesday 11 November 2008 (at 7:00 in Australia, 12:00 in San Francisco ,15:00 in the USA, and 20:00 GMT), at which the minutes of this meeting will be formally approved and then made publicly available.
Action: Jini

39.3 Strategic review of the Collaboration: It was agreed that this review, being led by Jeremy Grimshaw, should be the topic of the half-day discussion in Copenhagen on 24 April 2009.

39.4 Collaboration software: Ruth said that as the Collaboration was embarking on another software development exercise in creating the Cochrane Register of Studies, the Steering Group should try to learn from the current experience and establish clear guidelines from the outset. She said it would be particularly important to consider what level of ongoing development would be built into the CRS project.

39.5 Timing of announcements of Steering Group decisions: Steering Group members should wait until the minutes had been formally approved, before discussing any matters outside the meeting. Adrian and Lorne would highlight any items that could be communicated sooner than the Executive teleconference on 11 November, at which the minutes would be approved.
Action: Adrian, Lorne

39.6 Editor-in-Chief appointment: This appointment should be kept confidential until the person who has been offered the position has formally accepted it.

39.7 The Campbell Colloquium: Eamonn Noonan, CEO of The Campbell Collaboration, invited Steering Group members to attend this event from 18 to 20 May 2009. Nick said that a volunteer was needed to replace Peter Tugwell in representing The Cochrane Collaboration to The Campbell Collaboration; he asked anyone interested to make themselves known to him. Attendance at Campbell Steering Group meetings and Campbell Colloquia would be expected, the costs of which would be met from Collaboration core funds.
Action: Nick

39.8 French Cochrane Centre: Nick said that discussions were taking place during the Colloquium about the possibility of re-establishing a French Cochrane Centre, in Paris; this news was welcomed by the Steering Group.

39.9 Representation on the Steering Group: In response to several points that Andrew Herxheimer had made at the AGM, Donna volunteered to put together a document for Steering Group consideration at its next meeting in Copenhagen. She would address the challenge of achieving linguistic representation on the Steering Group for people whose first language is other than English, the importance of succession planning, and the priority for more women to hold leadership positions in the Collaboration. Janet suggested that technical solutions to translation issues should also be addressed. Lorne suggested establishing a fellowship scheme to provide people from lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experience of working with the Steering Group. Action: Donna

40. Thanks to the hosts and organisers of the meeting

At the end of the first Steering Group meeting on 2 October, Lorne had expressed thanks to the hosts of the Freiburg Colloquium for all their hard work in organising an excellent event. Gerd Antes, Britta Lang, Juliane Ried and Bärbel Schätzle had come to the first meeting to receive these thanks on behalf of their colleagues. At the end of the second Steering Group meeting on 6 October, Adrian thanked the Secretariat staff for organising the agenda materials for the two Steering Group meetings, and thanked Jini for taking the minutes.

* * * * *

APPENDIX

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, judgements 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.

Lorne Becker, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, Member, Executive Group; Convenor, Publishing Policy Group; 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: I received an 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: I have received 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, Executive 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), Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute, National Science Foundation, and Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program.

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. I receive an annual consulting fee from British Medical Journal Publishing for serving as a senior editor for Tobacco Control. In 2008, I anticipate being a paid consultant to the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), for independent research on drugs funded by the Italian Medicines Agency. 

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have accepted honoraria from 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, and the British Columbia Cancer Agency for a talk on bias in clinical trials. I have also received honoraria from the University of Toronto and Harvard University for serving as a member of a faculty promotion committee. 

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 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.

Zbigniew Fedorowicz, Representative of members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director, Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, 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, Public Health 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? 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, Acute Respiratory Infections, Anaesthesia, Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis, Heart, Musculoskeletal, Neonatal, Schizophrenia, and Wounds Review Groups; Peer Reviewer, Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis, Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, 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? 
Yes: 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; Author, Cochrane Incontinence, 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: The 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 currently have a one-off grant of 7600 GBP from The Cochrane Collaboration through its prioritisation initiative. I have received no research funding from commercial organisations. 

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?
I am Director of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme in England.

Sonja Henderson, Review Group Co-ordinator representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group;  Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group; Co-Convenor, RGCs' executive; Member, Information Management System Support Team; Member, RevMan Advisory Group; Member, Editorial Management Advisory 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.


Julian Higgins, Methods Group representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Steering Group Executive; Steering Group representative on the Quality Advisory Group; Co-Convenor, Handbook Advisory Group; Co-Editor, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Member, Bias Methods Group and Statistical Methods Group; Editor and Statistician, Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group; Statistician, Cochrane Heart Group; Author of reviews in various Cochrane 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? Yes: my employment contract is with the UK Medical Research Council. My research programme has received grant funding from the UK Medical Research Council, the UK Department of Health, the Foundation for Genomics and Population Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the East of England Development Agency, and The Cochrane Collaboration:

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? Yes: I received payments from the British Medical Journal and Roche for consultation, and from Elsevier for peer-reviewing (The Lancet).

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? Yes: I received payments from the University of Cambridge, the University of Leeds, Matrix Knowledge Group, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, SBTC Limited, the NHS (NHICE) and Novartis for teaching on systematic reviews. I received money from The Campbell Collaboration for work on a systematic review, and from The Cochrane Collaboration for work on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? Yes: I am a full-time employee of the UK Medical Research Council.

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.

Steve McDonald, Centre representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Co-Convenor, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Co-Director, Australasian Cochrane Centre; Author, Methodology Review Group and Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group; Member, Bias Methods Group and Information Retrieval Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group; Advisory Board Member, Prehospital and Emergency 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? Yes: payment from the National Institute of Clinical Studies to update The Cochrane Library User Guide.

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? Yes: member of the Committee of Management of The Joanna Briggs Institute.

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.

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; Member, Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group; Member, Information Management System Group; Member, Statistical Methods Group, and Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author, Cochrane Back, Dementia and Cognitive Improvement, Heart, Methodology, 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? Yes: in the past five years I have received research funding from the Dutch Health Council, Dutch Health Insurance Council and various Dutch scientific, non-commercial organisations. I was also involved as an applicant or advisor in a project funded by The Cochrane Collaboration via the Cochrane Opportunities Fund.   

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? Yes: I received a grant of 255,000 Euros from The Cochrane Collaboration for the Continental Europe Support Unit to support Continental European Cochrane Review Groups with the implementation of Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews.

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? Yes: I receive about 500-1000 Euros per year in royalty fees from Bohn, Stafleu and Van Loghum for publication of 'EBM in de klinische praktijk'.

Roger Soll, Co-ordinating Editor representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative on the Feedback Management Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Neonatal 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.

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, and Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma 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.

Liz Whamond, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Member, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Consumer referee, Cochrane Breast Cancer 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? I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and Vice-Chair of the Canadian Cancer Action Network.  

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.


Katrina Williams, Field Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Advisory Board member, Child Health Field; Editor and Author, Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems 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? During 2008-09 I will receive 1000 GBP from The Cochrane Collaboration to support the activities of the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group, of which I am Co-Convenor. I have also received funding in the last five years from the Federal Government of Australia to support the activities of the Australian Satellite of the Cochrane Child Health Field and from the Financial Markets Foundation for Children (a competitive grant funding body) to undertake systematic review work relevant to prognosis, and to develop Cochrane systematic reviews relevant to community child health. In addition, but not related to Cochrane or systematic review activities, I have received funding in competitive research funding cycles to complete research about the prognosis , early detection and prevalence of autism, and to conduct trials for two treatments for autism, as well as funding to explore ways to improve health outcomes through teamwork in paediatric hospital settings.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? I have been paid to give lectures about autism, clinical epidemiology and evidence-based medicine by universities and training organisations.

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? Yes, small gifts from our publishers.

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; Co-Convenor, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Author, Airways Group; Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group; Ear, Nose and Throat Group; Musculoskeletal 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, I have 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?
Yes: Erasmus MC received an honorarium from GlaxoSmithKline for my involvement in a study on impetigo.

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.

Declarations of interest of Secretariat staff

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.


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.


Claire Allen, Deputy Administrator, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat; Consumer (commenting on protocols and reviews) with the Cochrane Ear, Nose & Throat, Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility, Peripheral Vascular Diseases, Airways, and Acute Respiratory Infections Review Groups; Member of the Complementary Medicine Field Advisory Board; author in the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group; and on the project team assessing the uptake of the guideline relating to Perioperative Fasting, funded by the Healthcare Foundation:

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?
Yes: from The Royal College of Nursing, to produce a patient guideline leaflet for perioperative fasting.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes, for providing information to a pharmaceutical company. I donated this fee to the Cochrane Foundation Fund.

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.


Lucie Jones, Project Support and Business Communications Officer, 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.


Diana Wyatt, Secretary/Administrative Assistant, 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.