Minutes of meetings of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
24-26 April 2006
[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group
Executive on 6 June 2006,
and amended on 24 July 2006.]
|
Topic |
Item no. |
|
Access to background documents for Steering Group meetings |
|
|
Advisory Group budget requests for 2006-2007 |
|
|
CENTRAL Vision Group |
|
|
Centre Directors’ meeting |
|
|
Chief Executive Officer’s report |
|
|
Co-Chair, nomination for |
|
|
Co-Chairs’ report |
|
|
Cochrane review, cost of a |
|
|
Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, commissioning |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, pilot project to facilitate updating of |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, progress report on umbrella |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, quality of |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, short versions of |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, ‘updatedness’ of |
|
|
Cochrane reviews, updating of |
|
|
Colloquia, offers to host in 2009 and 2010 |
|
|
Colloquia, policy on commercial sponsorship of |
|
|
Colloquium Manager software |
|
|
Commercial sponsorship policy, Funding Arbiter’s audit re
compliance with |
|
|
Commercial sponsorship for Methods Groups |
|
|
Contact Information Working Group |
|
|
Co-ordinating Editors’ executive, report of Khon Kaen meeting |
|
|
Cost of a Cochrane review |
|
|
CRGs, guiding principles for editorial teams |
|
|
CRGs, Cochrane editors and industry sponsored reviews |
|
|
CRGs, proposed name change for Review Group Co-ordinators |
|
|
Declarations of interest by Steering Group members and staff |
|
|
Developing countries initiative |
|
|
Diagnostic test accuracy, Cochrane reviews of |
|
|
Discretionary Fund expenditure |
|
|
Elections Working Group |
|
| Ethics statement, proposed | |
|
Evidence Aid, possible lessons to be learned |
|
|
Fields, proposal to improve interactions with and support for CRGs |
|
|
Finance, proposed budget for 2006-2007 |
|
|
Finance, proposal for a Cochrane opportunities funding programme |
|
Finance, current financial position and cash flow forecast |
|
|
Funding Arbiter’s report on the audit of The Cochrane Library
|
|
|
Funding Arbitration Panel |
|
|
Information Management System, licensing costs |
|
|
Information Management System, Support Team |
|
|
Methods Groups, commercial sponsorship for |
|
|
Mid-year meetings of Centre Directors and Steering Group |
|
|
Monitoring and Registration Group budget |
|
|
New Interface Working Party |
|
|
Priority setting |
|
|
Secretariat staff salary arrangements |
|
|
Steering Group and Centre Directors’ mid-year meetings |
|
|
Steering Group, access to background documents for meetings |
|
|
Steering Group, five-year review of |
|
|
Steering Group, recommendations of Elections Working Group |
|
|
Strategic Plan, progress and priority setting for the next four years |
|
|
Strategic review of The Cochrane Collaboration |
|
|
Trading Company Directors, issues raised by |
|
|
Treasurer, replacement |
|
|
Umbrella reviews progress report; budget for working group |
|
|
Updating reviews, pilot project to facilitate |
|
|
Website, pilot survey; evaluation and review; budget proposal |
|
|
Wiley, John and Sons Limited |
Present (Steering Group members
shown in bold): Godwin Aja, Gerd Antes (member of CENTRAL Vision
Group; for item 8 only), Lorne Becker (for items 10 and 22 only), Lisa
Bero, Mark Davies (Co-Chair; chaired the discussion of items 1-9,
11-16, 19.1, 19.2, 20, 22), Jon Deeks (Treasurer), Zbys Fedorowicz,
Donna Gillies, Adrian Grant, Dymphna Hermans, Jini
Hetherington (Company Secretary; minutes) (absent for item 4.1); Monica
Kjeldstrøm (Director, Information Management System), Steff Lewis
(Co-Chair; chaired the discussion of items 17, 18, 19.3, 21, 23-28), Alessandro
Liberati (Chair of Steering Group Review Panel, for item 11 only), Jordi
Pardo (chaired the discussion for item 10), Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (John
Wiley and Sons, for items 9 and 16 only), Nick Royle (CEO) (absent for item
4.1), Rob Scholten, Haluk Soydan (The Campbell Collaboration, except for
items 7.2 and 11), Peter Tugwell, Janet Wale, Liz Waters, Narelle
Willis and Hans van der Wouden.
1.
Welcomes, apologies, and approval of the agenda
Mark
welcomed everyone to the meeting, which was Dymphna Hermans’ first
Steering Group meeting as representative of the Trials Search Co-ordinators.
Apologies for absence had been received from Lorne Becker and Sally Green.
Arrangements had been made for Lorne Becker to participate in the discussion of
items 10 and 22, and for Alessandro Liberati to participate in the discussion
of item 11. The agenda was approved; Mark described the changes to the order of
discussion of the agenda items.
2. Declarations of
interest of CCSG members, IMS Director, and staff
Mark drew attention to the declarations of interest that had been circulated
with the agenda material. Monica was attending the meeting to represent the
Trading Company Directors in addition to her role as Director of the Information
Management System. Steering Group members had no additional declarations of
interest to mention.
3. Matters arising from
minutes of the CCSG meeting, Melbourne, 2005:
Item 3.4 - Canvassing Co-ordinating Editors and Review Group Co-ordinators
about commissioning systematic reviews:
Action: Adrian
Item 3.8.1 - Progress and priority setting for the next four years: Nick
said he was awaiting input on new or revised activities from several Steering
Group members for certain items in the Collaboration’s Strategic Plan (http://www.cochrane.org/admin/stratplan.htm);
he would be following this up within the next few weeks. He expressed concern
about some initiatives underway which are not widely known about, and asked
that Steering Group members aware of such initiatives inform him of them so
that they can be annotated in the Strategic Plan. He explained that he was
using a new piece of software to help administer the Strategic Plan, and would
shortly be contacting Steering Group members about the items in the Plan for
which they were responsible, and describing how the software worked.
Action: Nick, Everyone
Item 3.13.13 - Contact Information Working Group: Monica reported on the
recommendations of the small working group deputed to consider issues
pertaining to access to contact information on people within The Cochrane Collaboration.
Entity representatives on the Steering Group should be invited to join this
temporary working group, which could be disbanded after it had made its
recommendations to the Steering Group. Monica said that a privacy policy for
the Collaboration is under development. Nick confirmed that legal advice had
been sought and, since members’ contact details are password protected,
there are legally no data protection issues. Mark asked entity representatives
to send Jini, within two weeks, the name of the person who would represent
their constituency’s views on this group.
Action: Everyone
Item 15.1.1 - Guiding principles for CRG editorial teams: Narelle agreed to
take over from Davina Ghersi in drafting a set of guiding principles for CRG
editorial teams, taking note of the guiding principles for Centre Directors and
Staff in section 3.3.1 of The Cochrane Manual.
Action: Narelle
Item 12 - Cost of a Cochrane review: Jon reported that he had not yet given
feedback to Miranda Mugford about her paper on the cost of a Cochrane review.
He confirmed that he had received the required input from Hans and Nick on the
paper. He would contact Miranda very shortly and report to the Steering Group
at its next meeting in
Action: Jon
Item 22.2.3 - Qualitative reviews: Jon explained that no proposal for the
Collaboration to undertake qualitative reviews had been brought to this
Steering Group meeting. Previous questions raised by Steering Group members
concerning methodology, implications for review groups and software, and the
feasibility of this type of review had been very helpful to the Qualitative
Methods Group in thinking through the issues they needed to address before a
full proposal could be submitted, which they still planned to do. An example
qualitative review was being prepared to see what problems might arise. Liz
reported that a meeting on the methodology of systematic reviews of qualitative
research was to take place in
Action: Jon, Liz
Item 23 - Umbrella reviews: Mark reminded everyone that Lorne’s
progress report had been e-mailed to them a week before this meeting (on 13
April). The potential importance of umbrella reviews was strongly endorsed.
Uncertainty was expressed on the status of Wiley’s involvement in this
area; such reviews should be seen as part of The Cochrane Library rather
than a parallel product.
4. Report from the Co-Chairs:
4.1 Salary arrangements
for Secretariat staff: Jini and Nick left the meeting for discussion of
this item. Mark reported that the staff of the Secretariat had recently been
put on UK National Health Service pay scales, to enable automatic inflationary
pay increases, and a structure for increases above inflation, while current
employment arrangements remain unchanged. The principles outlined in the
background document were agreed to.
4.2 New
Interface Working Party: Mark reported that the new online interface of The
Cochrane Library had become available within the last few days, and invited
feedback to be sent to him after the meeting.
Action: Everyone
4.3 Short
versions of Cochrane reviews: Mark reported that in consultation with
others the Publishing Policy Group is currently considering several different
options for the type of information that should be included in short versions
of Cochrane reviews, in consultation with others. The added benefit of
producing short versions was pointed out, because translations of these would require
less resources than the full versions and would therefore be more achievable.
5. Report from
the Chief Executive Officer
Nick
reported on the progress of negotiations with regard to a Europe-wide licence
for The Cochrane Library. He highlighted the impact of this initiative
on translation issues, and also on the increase in visibility of The Cochrane
Collaboration. Nick also reported on the status of negotiations for the licence
to
6.1 Current
financial position and cash flow forecast:
6.1.1 Income
and expenditure: Jon showed several graphs, the first of which was of
Wiley’s income over the past year, indicating a very healthy rate of
increase of over ten per cent, which is in excess of both Wiley’s and the
Collaboration’s projections. He highlighted that central running costs
have not changed very much; rather, money is being spent on new initiatives,
including sponsored Colloquium registration fees and complimentary
subscriptions to The Cochrane Library for authors and Cochrane entities.
The main funded initiatives were IT-related ones such as IMS Development, IMS
Support, the Collaboration website, ‘Colloquium Manager’ and
MeerKat. The committed budgets approved for other kinds of initiatives had been
underspent in the year for various reasons. Nick drew attention to the
difference on the cash flow forecast between expectations versus actual
commitments. Narelle highlighted the fact that it had been previously agreed
that part of the cost of the IMS is a central service to the Collaboration
rather than an ‘initiative’, but Jon reported that attempts to
separate costs of maintenance and development for both the IMS and the website
had not been successful. Nick pointed out that considering the costs of the
central administration of the Collaboration, expenditure should be viewed as a
proportion of overall income, not just as a proportion of the amount of
royalties. Jon showed additional graphs and spoke to several apparent over- and
under-spends, all of which had reasonable explanations.
6.1.2 Carry-over of
working group budgets: Jon’s suggestion was agreed to, of working
groups carrying over their budget to the following year if they wished. He
would liaise with Jini about advising the working groups of this decision.
Budgets for advisory groups to and subgroups of the Steering Group would
continue to be renewed annually. It was agreed that unspent budgets that had
been approved for finite tasks could also be carried over, but that all such
budgets should have an end date. Jon, Nick and Jini would categorise the items
on the appropriate worksheet to indicate the status of each approved budget.
Action: Jini, Jon, Nick
6.1.3 Replacement
Treasurer: Jon advised that he would be stepping down as Treasurer at the
Annual General Meeting in
Action: Any CCSG member
6.1.4 Colloquium
Manager: It was agreed to support the development of the ‘Colloquium
Manager’ software for the Brazilian Colloquium in 2007. Jini was asked to
advise the Colloquium organisers of this decision, and to prompt the Norwegian
branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre to request the necessary funds from the
Executive of the Steering Group.
Action: Jini
6.2
Proposed
budget for 2006-07: Jon explained that he had developed the proposed
annual budget for the Collaboration for the new financial year with Nick and
Jini. There were no queries and the budget was approved.
6.3 Advisory
Group and MRG requested budgets for 2006-2007: Jon pointed out that all
the Steering Group’s advisory groups had spent less than their approved
budgets for the year 2005-2006. The Steering Group approved the budgets
requested by the Advisory Groups, the Monitoring and Registration Group for
2006-2007; Jini was asked to advise the relevant Co-Convenors.
Action: Jini
6.4 Proposal
for a Cochrane opportunities funding programme: Jon provided some
background to the skeleton proposal he had put together at the request of the
Steering Group, for creating a budget to which Cochrane entities could bid for
funds. It was agreed that entities are more likely to buy into new ideas if
there is a fund to which they can apply for a particular project, so this
proposal was welcomed and approved in principle; however, more thought needed
to be given as to whether this was the most appropriate way of distributing
income throughout the entities. A working group of Donna, Lisa, Liz, Narelle
and Nick was convened to help Jon revise the draft, omitting the option of
applying for funds to support an entity through a funding crisis, and making it
clear that applications should fit with the goals of the Strategic Plan. The
revised document will be brought to the Steering Group Executive for approval,
with the idea of announcing in
Action: Jon, Lisa, Liz, Narelle, Donna, Nick, Jini
6.5 Discretionary
Fund table of expenditure: This table was included in the background papers
for information, showing that the maximum amount of £15,000 for the
financial year April 2005 to March 2006 had been claimed from this Fund.
7.
Information
Management System
7.1 IMS
Support Team: Monica explained that the contracts of the four members of
the IMS Support Team (who are all based within Cochrane Review Groups) come to
an end on 31 March 2007. She requested a continuation of their funding for a
further two years, as indicated in the cash flow forecast. Nick spoke to the
benefits that had already been experienced by the recipients of this support.
The Steering Group approved this request, and asked Monica to take the
necessary steps to have these contracts extended.
Action: Monica
7.2 Licensing
costs of the Information Management System (IMS): Haluk Soydan,
representing The Campbell Collaboration at this meeting, left the room for
discussion of this item. Monica reminded everyone that she is an employee of
Rigshospitalet which owns the copyright of the IMS software. She reported that
she had received two expressions of interest in purchasing the IMS. Royalty
income would accrue to the Collaboration from such purchases, so it would be
important to set the licensing fee for the product at a level that is
attractive both to the Collaboration and to potential purchasers, particularly
those of which it is supportive and with which it has close relations. Jon said
that these expressions of interest highlighted that the Collaboration should be
grateful to the developers of the IMS for producing such a worthwhile product.
The Steering Group expressed support to Monica in whatever way she chooses to
move forward on this issue, and Nick said he would be happy to provide
assistance in any negotiations. It was agreed to be wary of diverting resources
to new developments at a crucial time in the development of RevMan 5.
Action: Monica
8.
CENTRAL
Vision Group (CVG) progress report
As members of the CVG, Adrian
led the discussion and Gerd Antes attended the meeting for this item only.
Action: Adrian, Nick
9.
Report
from John Wiley and Sons
Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert
from John Wiley and Sons attended the meeting to present this item.
9.1 Royalties:
Deborah described the healthy level of growth in income to the Collaboration in
royalties during the past year. Renewals of national provisions accounted in
part for this growth; increased sales of The Cochrane Library on Wiley
InterScience, and also of partnerships (e.g. OVID, EBSCO), were other
contributory factors.
9.2 Usability
audit of The Cochrane Library: Deborah explained the intention to
conduct an annual usability audit, working with an independent consultant,
which would drive Wiley’s development programme. This audit would both
take advice from The Cochrane Collaboration but also from users of The
Cochrane Library.
9.3 New
interface of The Cochrane Library online: Deborah showed a
screenshot of the new interface of the online version of The Library,
which gives more prominence to the product and less to the publisher than
previously. She explained the increase in productivity with Wiley now taking on
the full data conversion process, and thanks to interaction with members of the
Collaboration. She drew attention to the increase in the number of published
reviews.
9.4 The
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Deborah confirmed that the
Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews (CDMR) would be integrated with the
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), as would umbrella reviews and
diagnostic test accuracy reviews as appropriate, which would affect the impact
factor.
9.5 Licensing
of translations: Deborah said that the licensing of translations in
Mark thanked Deborah and her colleagues for the hard work that had resulted in
the healthy growth in income to John Wiley and Sons, and therefore in royalties
to the Collaboration. He noted the good working relationships that the
publishers had established with members of the Collaboration.
10.
Nomination
for Co-Chair of the Steering Group
Jordi chaired the
discussion of this item. Jon spoke on behalf of Sally Green and himself as to
the background, experience and qualities of Lorne Becker, in support of their
nomination for him to replace Mark as Co-Chair of the Steering Group in October
2006. Lorne’s nomination had been the only one received.
Peter raised several concerns as to how Co-Chairs of the Steering Group are
selected. Mark said that whilst concerns had been expressed by the
Co-ordinating Editors’ executive regarding the selection process, they
had never formally suggested an alternative in writing. He pointed out that
experience of the review production process is not the primary requirement, as
Co-Chairs represent all members of the Collaboration. It was agreed that the
current selection process should be maintained, pending the results of the
current five-year review of the Steering Group. Mark requested that Peter
encourage the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive to produce a draft
alternative process for Co-Chair selection and a discussion document for the
next Steering Group meeting in
Action: Peter, Jon
Lorne Becker was then connected to the meeting by telephone. He explained his
reasons for being prepared to take on the role of Co-Chair of the Steering
Group. The Steering Group approved Lorne fulfilling this role for two years
from October 2006. Jordi thanked him for being prepared to take on this
responsibility, which would come into effect at the Annual General Meeting in
11.
Steering
Group five-year review
Alessandro Liberati, chair
of the panel conducting the five-year review of the Steering Group, was
connected to the meeting by telephone for this item only. Alessandro reported
that there had been clear terms of reference for this review, which had been
adhered to. He had received 70 out of 120 potential completed questionnaires,
but disappointingly only 28 of the 50 Review Groups had replied. Funding was
mentioned most frequently as an issue of concern, as were the quality of
reviews and the challenge of updating them. The panel’s final report was
due by the end of July, but Alessandro asked whether this timescale could be
extended. It was agreed that the final report should be included on the agenda
for the next Steering Group meeting in
Action: Peter,
12.
Elections
Working Group recommendations
The proposed changes to
the election process described in the background document were approved in
principle, with the primary aim of reducing entities’ workload. The issue
of how to deal with voting in more than one entity needs more thought, as
duplicate entries for individuals make it impossible to aggregate votes. It was
agreed that eventually, once the majority of duplicate entries have been
resolved, the Secretariat would be able to send out the voting papers rather
than entity electoral officers, to relieve entities’ workload. It was
reaffirmed that the ranking and number of points received by each candidate
should continue to be made public, as the number of votes would only be an
indication of ranking if there were no aggregation. It was reiterated that
people performing the role of Trials Search Co-ordinators (TSCs) in all types
of entity should be eligible to nominate, stand and vote for the TSC
representative on the Steering Group. Authors of registered titles of new
reviews are ineligible to nominate, stand and vote for the CRG author position;
however, authors of published protocols as well as of published reviews are
eligible to do so. The ‘at large’ position should remain labelled
as such, pending completion of the review of the Steering Group. The process
for electing Centre representatives should continue as at present, pending
completion of the review of the Steering Group. It was agreed that
“active member” should be inserted under the description of the
Methods Group representative position. The Elections Working Group should
re-convene after completion of the Steering Group review and possible
re-structure, to ensure that the description of the election process is still
valid. Monica clarified that the aggregation of votes would be done by the
Secretariat in future, rather than by the entity electoral officers.
Action: Jini, Monica
13.
Proposal
for a strategic review of The Cochrane Collaboration
Nick spoke to this
proposal, correcting ‘Option 2’ to ‘Option 4’ in
paragraph 15(b) of his background document. Liz asked for Fields to be
included in the discussion of undertaking a strategic review of the
Collaboration, due to their responsibility in relation to engagement with
external stakeholders. Lisa reported that the Centre Directors support this
proposal, bringing in external people with business, non-profit and systematic
review experience. Nick was asked to canvass the Centre Directors for names of
organisations to be approached. Peter said the Co-ordinating Editors’
executive was strongly in favour of undertaking this strategic review. Nick
and Donna would discuss the most appropriate way of involving Cochrane authors
in this initiative. Nick said the likely timescale would be set after the
appropriate consultations had taken place with stakeholders, by the time of the
Dublin Colloquium. He thought the review itself should take six to twelve
months in order to do the job properly. It was agreed that this review should
take place, and that Nick should prepare a plan for its conduct along the lines
of Option 4 in his proposal, to present to the Steering Group in
Action: Nick, Donna
14.
Cochrane
diagnostic reviews of test accuracy
14.1 Jon said that Narelle, Rob and Steff also had a
particular interest in this item as they were working in Cochrane entities
closely involved with the initiative. He explained that [part of the role
of the original Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Working Group was to
consider the creation of a database of reviews of test accuracy. The Steering
Group had initially] rejected the suggestion to do this, because [The
Cochrane Collaboration] had the higher priority of establishing review
groups to cover all areas of health care; however, the Steering Group had
reversed this decision in 2003 because other priorities had by then been met.
[=post hoc corrections]
14.2 Jon explained that
Wiley was supportive of publishing these reviews initially as a derivative
product, with the long-term aim of moving them into The Cochrane Library,
and had undertaken to support this initiative to the tune of £50,000 a
year, payable in advance if the reviews are published in a separate
journal/derivative product. He suggested that outside funders might well find
this new initiative attractive and be willing to support it. It was noted that
members of the Funders’ Forum who had made this suggestion had, with one
exception, failed to produce concrete support, although it was pointed out that
they had not been directly approached in the last few years. Jon’s
document had set out the likely costs, but he said that any amount of funding
would be extremely helpful.
14.3 It was agreed to
provide £100,000 per year for two years from central funds, on the
understanding that Nick would actively pursue outside funding in addition. This approved sum will be used to fund the proposed Regional
Support Unit for mainland Europe, to be based in the
Action: Jon, Nick
15.
Developing
countries initiative (DCI): registration as an entity
The report of the meeting held
in
Action: Zbys
16.
Cochrane
Collaboration website:
Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert from
John Wiley and Sons participated in the discussion of this item.
16.1 Pilot
survey of the website: Nick expressed thanks to Herb Turner of The Campbell
Collaboration for his time and assistance in developing this online survey, and
to Dave Booker and colleagues at the German Cochrane Centre for mounting the
survey link on the website; also to members of the Consumer Network, the
Italian and German Cochrane Centres and others for their assistance in piloting
the survey before it went live.
16.2 Evaluation
and review of the website: Nick thanked Wiley for providing prizes for a
prize draw to help obtain a wide response to the recent evaluation of the
website. The results showed that people were generally satisfied with the
website, and work had already started to improve the ‘look and
feel’, usability and search ability of the site. The general principle
was reiterated that the Collaboration website exists to serve the needs both of
members of the Collaboration and of people external to it. The importance of
publishing abstracts and plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews on the
website was reaffirmed. It was agreed that the search facility needs to be
improved. There was strong support for continuation of the entity website
template/builder project, but the timescale should be speeded up as there has
been some frustration that the template is not yet ready for widespread use.
The option was approved of maintaining the website development project at the
current pace with no new major developments (Option 2 under paragraph 28), with
the website development team continuing to be hosted by the German Cochrane
Centre.
16.3 Website management budget
proposal: The Steering Group agreed that the CEO should have operational
decision-making responsibility for the website. Deborah said that the
Collaboration website is a key factor in enabling people to locate The
Cochrane Library. She said Wiley would like the user survey to be conducted
on a regular basis, as its results had been extremely informative. There had
been about 600,000 hits of The Cochrane Library last year via the site.
The budget for Option 2 of Dave Booker’s website management budget
proposal was approved for two years, to 31 March 2008. The amount of
£95,100 would be made available from core funds in the financial year
2006-07, and the amount of £97,950 in the financial year 2007-08. Nick
was asked to investigate additional sources of sponsorship for the website with
the German Cochrane Centre, and to communicate the outcome of this discussion
to the website development team.
Action: Nick
17.
Funding
Arbitration Panel membership
Lisa described the current
membership of this Panel. One of the Panel members had been finding it difficult
to participate fully, due to many other commitments. However, Lisa explained
that since the last Steering Group meeting there had only been two issues for
the Panel to resolve. In view of the increased workload ahead for the Panel as
the result of the discussion of item 24 below (which had been discussed before
this item), Lisa agreed to discuss with the Panel member whether or not it
would be advisable to continue in this role.
Action: Lisa
18.
Some
possible lessons to be learned from Evidence Aid
Mike Clarke’s report was received with interest
and appreciation. Steff agreed to send it to the Co-Convenors of the Quality
Advisory Group in order that any possible lessons to be learned could be taken
on board. Jini was asked to e-mail the report to the Steering Group to enable
entity representatives to forward it to their constituents.
Action: Steff, Jini
19.
Cochrane
Review Group issues:
19.1.1
Pilot project to facilitate updating of systematic reviews: Rob spoke to
the proposed pilot project to centralise the updating of reviews. The person(s)
employed to undertake this work should be experienced in preparing Cochrane
reviews. Rob clarified that review groups would be asked to nominate those
reviews most in need of updating. Peter suggested that it should be possible to
‘close’ a review if there was no longer a need to gather further
evidence, as is done in the Infectious Diseases Group. Rob explained that if
the pilot project was successful, a future request for funding might be made to
establish centralised updating as a regular procedure. Peter reported that the
Co-ordinating Editors’ executive had expressed reservations about
adopting this approach (see item 27.2(ii)). However, it was agreed to fund this
as a pilot, to a maximum of 65,000 Euros, to be spent within one financial year
from the start of the project. Rob was asked to rework the proposal into a
project plan with deliverables and the lessons to be learned, and circulate it
to the Steering Group. Comparisons should be made with similar pilot projects
as part of this proposal.
Action: Rob
19.1.2 ‘Updatedness’
of reviews: In the meantime, it was agreed that the
‘updatedness’ of a review needs to be more clearly presented in The
Cochrane Library. Monica clarified that the future additions of the
‘Date the review was last assessed as up-to-date’ and a flag
indicating that a review is stable should help to address this need; it was
agreed that there needs to be very clear guidance on how to use these new
fields. The Working Group had also noted that confusion exists among people
reading a PubMed abstract of a Cochrane review: the review might appear to be
very old but could have been updated very recently. Rob said that the working
group looking at dates in reviews would make a written proposal to the
Publishing Policy Group about adding a standard sentence to all abstracts of
Cochrane reviews, saying that the reader should consult the latest version of
the review on the online version of The Cochrane Library in order to see
the most up to date information.
Action: Rob
19.2 RGC proposed name change:
Narelle explained the consultation process that had gone on in order to reach
the stage of proposing a name change from ‘Review Group
Co-ordinator’ to ‘Managing Editor’. It was agreed that other
roles within the Collaboration may need to undergo name changes if this name
change is to be agreed to. Peter requested that the Steering Group should defer
discussion of this item until it has been fully discussed between the RGCs and
the Co-ordinating Editors during the Dublin Colloquium; Adrian supported this
approach, as did Dymphna with respect to Trials Search Co-ordinators. Liz
addressed the implications of name changes in terms of salary considerations,
as well as the relationship to key roles within other entities such as Fields.
Steff thanked Narelle for her thorough canvass of RGCs’ views. It was
agreed to defer this until it had been fully discussed during the Dublin
Colloquium. Liz would ensure that a member of a Field/Network was involved in
such discussions.
Action: Adrian, Dymphna, Narelle, Peter, Liz
19.3 Cochrane
editors and industry sponsored reviews: Lisa reported that the Centre Directors had
discussed the concerns expressed in the proposal that had been submitted to the
Centre Directors and the Steering Group by Peter Gøtzsche on behalf of
the Advisory Board of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Although the Centre Directors
did not support the proposal in its current form, they did support the
recommendation that Cochrane editors and other members of CRG editorial teams
should make declarations of interest in Review Group modules and keep this
information updated. The Steering Group agreed in principle that declaration of
interest statements for members of [CRGs (editorial base staff and
editors), Methods Groups (Convenors, Co-Convenors and administrative staff),
Fields/Networks (Directors, Convenors, Co-ordinators, Co-ordinating Committees,
and Administrators), Centres and Centre Branches (all staff who are involved in
the review process, including Centre Directors, scientific staff,
administrative staff, and TSCs/Information Specialists)] should be
published in their module. Lisa proposed asking editors, authors and others to
provide structured declarations of interest, along the lines of the
declarations of Steering Group members in The Cochrane Library. Jini
would send the contact people of all entities the template
used for Steering Group members’ disclosures, with the text of this
minute once it has been approved. Godwin, Janet and Peter agreed to draft an
ethics statement and bring it to the Executive Group, having sought the input
of the recently proposed Centre Directors’ executive. Lisa also suggested
that Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert be consulted about the proposed ethics
statement.
Action: Godwin, Janet, Peter, Jini
[=post hoc correction]
Commercial sponsorship for Methods Groups: Mark chaired the meeting for this item.
Jon explained the background and rationale for his proposed revision of the Cochrane
Collaboration policy on commercial sponsorship pertaining to the funding of Methods Groups. He had
revised the section on Methods Groups in line with the principles that he had
previously circulated to the Steering Group. He explained that Methods Groups
are not funded per se but that funding is often obtained for the activities of
Methods Groups or their members. After some discussion the Steering Group agreed
unanimously that commercial sources of funding to Methods Groups should not be
prohibited, and that the proposed revision of the policy be accepted, viz:
It was agreed that funding from a commercial source [as defined in the Cochrane
Collaboration policy on commercial sponsorship] for the activities of Methods
Groups, or of their members, in producing Cochrane reviews of healthcare
interventions or tests, or supporting individual Cochrane Review Groups,
including peer review, is not permitted. Methodologists who have personally
received remuneration or research funds from a commercial source in the
previous five years should ensure that they have no involvement in reviews of
interventions or tests in which the commercial source has a vested interest. The
receipt and use of commercial funds by Methods Groups for other purposes must
be declared in Methods Groups’ modules. Mark will revise the policy
accordingly and forward it to Jini to include in The Cochrane Manual and notify
the Collaboration via the entity mailing lists.
Lisa pointed out that any members of Methods Groups who are authors of Cochrane
reviews should declare financial ties with commercial sources: Jon pointed out
that this requirement was already Collaboration policy, as a methodologist acting
as an author would be subject to the other clauses in the policy. There was
also discussion about methodologists with interests in commercial
methodological products such as software having potential conflicts when they
provide methodological advice to the Collaboration, and it was agreed that a
policy of declaring these potential conflicts would be followed. Nick suggested
that this policy be part of the general ethics statement being planned for the
Collaboration and The Cochrane Library, and Narelle agreed to take this
into account in the work she would be undertaking.
Action: Mark, Nick, Jon, Jini, Narelle
21. Centre
issues:
21.1 Verbal
report from Centre Directors’ meeting: Lisa was asked to request Peter Gøtzsche to submit a new invitation on behalf
of the Nordic Cochrane Centre to host the mid-year meetings in
Action: Lisa, Jordi
21.2 Proposed
new wording for Colloquium sponsorship policy: There had been some confusion as to whether or not
the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) had recommended a blanket ban on
commercial sponsorship of Colloquia. Mark pointed out that whilst it is
important to keep in mind the impact of a change in policy, the policy should
be determined first and then a plan should be formulated to deal with any
consequences of that policy. He also noted that to amend the policy on
sponsorship of colloquia in line with the Collaboration’s
overall policy on commercial sponsorship did
not necessarily mean a blanket ban on commercial sponsorship, as the Collaboration’s policy did allow commercial
sponsorship under some circumstances (e.g. via donations to the Foundation
Fund, and funding of Methods Groups). It was agreed that Jordi, as one of the CCSG representatives on the
CPAG, should ask the CPAG to revise the Colloquium
sponsorship policy to make it more explicit, and should also consider
and make recommendations as to how the costs of colloquia to participants might
be able to be reduced.
Action: Jordi
22. Proposal
to improve Fields’ interactions with and support for CRGs: Lorne was connected to the meeting by
telephone for this item. His background document was noted with interest. There
was general support in principle for adding tags to titles, protocols and
reviews to indicate that they are potentially of interest to Fields. Monica
noted that the estimate of programmer time cited in the document was incorrect,
and that a member of the IMS team would need to spend two to four weeks on the
project, which could lead to delays in other projects. It was agreed that Lorne
should liaise with Monica about the timing of the implementation of this
proposal, and that this should be done taking current priorities into account.
Lorne indicated that no detailed budget had as yet been developed for the
project. He was asked to develop such a budget and resubmit the proposal to the
Executive. It was suggested that members of the Collaboration should be
encouraged to address the symptoms of lack of interaction between CRGs and
Fields.
Action: Lorne, Monica
23. Issues raised by
the Trading Company Directors
Monica
was representing the Trading Company Directors at this meeting. The Directors
had recommended that the financial statements of all past years should be made
available on the website in the interests of transparency. Nick explained that
discussions had already taken place with the accountants as to the feasibility
of this, and Jini was asked to follow it up. It was noted from the table of key
dates in 2006 that all actions had been completed by their due date so far this
year. Monica thanked Jini, as Company Secretary, for having carried out these
duties. Jon said that the recent changes in salary arrangements might
potentially affect the appraisal dates of Secretariat staff; the Co-Chairs
would explore this.
Action: Jini, Mark, Steff
24.
Funding
Arbiter’s report on the audit of The Cochrane Library
re compliance with the commercial sponsorship policy
Lisa described the process
that had been followed in undertaking the audit of The Cochrane Library
to see how many protocols and reviews do not, and/or may not, comply with the
Collaboration’s commercial sponsorship policy. Peter thanked Lisa and
Linda Chang for this important work; Rasmus Moustgaard at the Nordic Cochrane
Centre had been extremely helpful in providing information on sources of support
from the Parent Database. Lisa had also detailed in her report the next step in
investigating whether the reviews/protocols identified did or did not comply
with the Cochrane Collaboration policy on commercial sponsorship. All agreed that the Funding Arbitration Panel should
proceed as planned (see also
item 17 above.) The Funding Arbiter should also liaise with the Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG) to
identify any discrepancies between the data in this audit report and the number
of entities that had reported, as part of the monitoring process, whether or
not they (or any of the reviews in their module) had received commercial
sponsorship. (The MRG had reported the data about commercial sponsorship in
2005; since CRGs are not being monitored in 2006, the next set of data will be
available in 2007.) Lisa’s suggestion of adding another member to the
Funding Arbitration Panel was approved. She agreed to send a written proposal
to the Executive Group as to who this should be. She would also submit a small
budget proposal to the Executive if necessary to progress the work. It was
generally accepted that in the first instance any queries about individual
reviews should be directed to the Co-ordinating Editors and Review Group
Co-ordinators, in preference to approaching review authors directly.
Action: Lisa
25.
Spreadsheet of CCSG members’ outstanding
action items
Steff
reminded Steering Group members that this spreadsheet is a tool to help them
keep track of their outstanding action items. She asked them to remember to let
Diana Wyatt in the Secretariat know when they have completed any of their
items, to keep the spreadsheet current and useful.
Action: Everyone
26.
CCSG members’ feedback on the draft minutes
of this meeting
Steff
reminded Steering Group members of their individual responsibility, as members
of the board of trustees of The Cochrane Collaboration, to provide feedback on
the draft minutes of this meeting, in order that the Executive can approve them
in their teleconference on 6 June, and as accurate a record of the discussions
as possible can be made available to the members of the Collaboration.
Action: Everyone
27.
Any other business:
27.1 Access
to documents: Steff reminded Steering Group members of their previous
decision that all background documents for items on Steering Group agendas
should be labelled ‘Open access’, ‘Embargoed’,
‘Commercial-in-confidence’ or ‘Confidential’. In
addition, it should be clearly specified if certain groups should be allowed to
see a particular document, e.g. ‘Confidential, but input being sought
from the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive and the Centre
Directors’. Thus, only those documents labelled ‘Open access’
can be released to members of the Collaboration upon request. Nick should check
the guidance on preparing documents for the Steering Group to make sure this
requirement is clear, and Jini should ensure that all background documents in
future bear the appropriate label.
Action: Nick, Jini
27.2 Verbal report from the Co-ordinating
Editors’ executive meeting:
27.2.1 First
meeting of Co-ordinating Editors’ executive in Khon Kaen: Peter
reported that the executive appreciated the Steering Group’s decision to
fund this meeting from the Discretionary Fund to the maximum amount allowed
(£3000). Peter reported that the meeting had been very productive, and
had allowed major progress to be made on addressing the issue of the quality of
Cochrane reviews, the pivotal role of the Co-ordinating Editors, and the
development of recommendations for action, for endorsement in
27.2.2 Quality
of Cochrane reviews: The major focus of the meeting had been on the threats
to/problems with the quality of Cochrane reviews, described in the background
paper produced by Paul Garner, Sophie Hill, Harriet MacLehose and Andy Oxman,
which had been used as the basis for productive brainstorming during the
meeting. The discussion had then turned to identification of the
processes/functions that would need to be improved in order to address problems
of quality of Cochrane reviews; some minimum standards for editorial group
policies had been suggested. The various functions would need to be mapped to
the various CRG roles (Co-ordinating and other Editors, Review Group
Co-ordinator, Trials Search Co-ordinator), to clarify at what level action
should be taken to bring about solutions. The background paper had since been
expanded to incorporate the discussions in Khon Kaen, and to include some draft
recommendations for solutions to the problems that had been identified. This
document would be circulated to all Co-ordinating Editors for their input in
July 2006, and would form the basis for discussion and decisions in
27.2.3 Updating
of Cochrane reviews: Peter highlighted the issues that had been discussed,
including when and how to update reviews, what needs to be updated (methods and
studies), and whether reviews can be ‘closed’. He said that there
was currently large variation amongst Cochrane Review Groups with regard to
strategies for addressing the issue of updating reviews. The Co-ordinating
Editors’ executive had agreed to ask Rob Scholten (chair of the
CCSG-mandated Updating Working Group) to discuss this with Paul Garner, Adrian
Grant and Jeremy Grimshaw, and to take into account the executive’s
concerns with the updating funding proposal (see also item 19.1). Peter was
asked to ensure that any work on quality issues is done in consultation with
the Quality Advisory Group.
Action: Peter
27.2.4 Priority
setting: The Co-ordinating Editors’ executive had attended the
Steering Group’s brainstorming session in Khon Kaen on priority setting,
organised by Liz Waters, Lisa Bero and Peter Tugwell. Each of the small
breakout discussion groups had had at least one co-chair who was a
Co-ordinating Editor. Some excellent ideas had been developed that the Steering
Group had indicated would be given priority for implementation. Lisa Bero had
agreed to be the rapporteur for this session and would be circulating a report
with action points and timelines. The feedback from many Centre Directors and
members of the Steering Group was that the presence of six Co-ordinating
Editors at this session had made a major difference. One of the Centre
Directors made a plea at the end of it for the Co-ordinating Editors to be well
represented at all meetings of this kind in future, given their central role in
implementing any resultant recommendations.
28.
Thanks to the host
Steff
thanked Pisake Lumbiganon and his colleagues at the Thai Cochrane Network,
especially Natthaleeya Narash, for their warm hospitality and efficient
organisation of the several Cochrane meetings in Khon Kaen. Steff also thanked
Claire Allen and Diana Wyatt in the Secretariat for preparation of the
materials for this meeting, and Jini for taking the minutes.
Declarations of interest of Steering Group members
Godwin Aja, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group
representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Author, Effective Practice
and Organisation of Care Review Group; Member, Cochrane Consumers and
Communication Review Group; Member, Health Promotion and Public Health
Field:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract
or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting
fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash
or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or held a position of management with a related organisation?
I serve as associate professor, health promotion and education, at
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation?
No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Lorne Becker, Field Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group (shared position with Liz Waters); Member, Monitoring and
Registration Group; Co-ordinator, Primary Health Care Field; Author and Peer
Referee, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Review Group; Author, Cochrane
Tobacco Addiction Review Group; Member, Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review
Group, and Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract
or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work,
consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash
or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: Honorarium from Thompson Micromedex for serving on the editorial
board of their DiseaseDex publication.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options,
equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar
arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the
shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related
organisation?
Yes: Small gifts from the Welch Allyn Corporation and the Dutch Dairy
Council.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Lisa Bero, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Member, 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), and Flight Attendants Medical Research
Institute.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or
kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: I have received consulting fees (four times) from the
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash
or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have accepted honoraria ($50 to $1000 US on a one-time basis)
from the Canadian National Cancer Institute and AHRQ for grant review, Research
Triangle Institute and Health Systems Research, Inc. for methodological
consultation, the Friends Research Institute for a talk on financial conflicts
of interest and clinical trials, The Association of Medical Writers and
Dartmouth University for talks on reporting of scientific research in the lay
press, and the World Health Organization and Pomona University - European Union
Center for talks on public commentary on the Framework Convention on Tobacco
Control, Kaiser Permanente for talks on a) evaluating the quality of research
and b) tobacco industry manipulation of research, and the World Conference on
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics for a talk on managing financial
conflicts of interest in clinical trials.
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
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 $50.00 US per year in royalty fees from the
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.
Mark Davies, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group; Convenor, Publishing Policy Group; Member, Executive
Group; Author, Cochrane Anaesthesia, Neonatal and Skin Review Groups; Peer
Reviewer, Cochrane Anaesthesia 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?
Yes: (a) I am a consultant neonatologist: part of my income is
derived from private practice in neonatology; (b) I have acted as a
consultant to BMJ Books reviewing manuscripts and proposals; but no other
for-profit companies; (c) In 2003 I co-edited and published 'Pocket notes
on neonatology' (ISBN 0-9750756-0-8) when the printing costs were partially met
by grants from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd and Abbott Australasia
Pty Ltd.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash
or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options,
equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar
arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the
shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related
organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Jon Deeks, Methods Group Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Treasurer; Co-Convenor,
Statistical Methods Group, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews Working
Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group;
Member, Quality Advisory Group, RevMan Advisory Group, Screening and
Diagnostic Tests Methods Group, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group, Reporting
Bias Methods Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift,
commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct
research?
Yes: I received funding from 2001 to 2003 to employ a research fellow from
Pfizer Ltd. From 2004-2007 my salary is funded by a
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for
a related organisation?
Yes: I received payment from the BMJ for reviewing and attending committees
from 2000-2005. I was paid consultancy fees by Pfizer Ltd for
statistical advice in 2001 and 2002.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
Yes: I received an honorarium for lecturing from NICE in 2004.
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 all members of Cochrane Review
Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director, Bahrain Branch of the
UK Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member,
Information Management System Group; Member, Health Related Quality of Life
Methods Group; Member and Peer Referee, Cochrane Oral Health Review Group;
Member, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Review Group; and Member, Health Promotion and
Public Health Field:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract
or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work,
consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash
or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options,
equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar
arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the
shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation?
No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Donna Gillies, Author
Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing
Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory
Group; Author, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections, Anaesthesia,
Heart, Musculoskeletal, Neonatal, Schizophrenia, and Wounds
Review Groups; Peer Reviewer, Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and
Neurosis, and Anaesthesia Review Groups:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: I have received small grants funding from the Children’s Hospital
at Westmead.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting
fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation?
I have received honoraria as a reviewer for the Journal of Advanced Nursing.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Adrian Grant, Co-ordinating Editor Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Co-ordinating Editor liaison
with the Monitoring and Registration Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane
Incontinence Review Group; Author, Cochrane Pregnancy and
Childbirth, Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases, and Renal
Review Groups; Consumer Reviewer, Cochrane Neuromuscular Diseases Review Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes:
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting
fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind)
from a related organisation?
Yes: a single payment from Ethicon Endosurgery for attendance at
a meeting to discuss possible research collaboration not pursued.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of
interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Sally Green, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Director, Australasian Cochrane Centre; Co-Convenor,
Monitoring and Registration Group, Quality Advisory Group, and Handbook
Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract
or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research?
All my research is funded through competitive research grants. I
have no commercial research contracts. My current grants are from The
Australian Department of Health and Ageing, The Australian National Health and
Medical Research Council, The Australian Research Council, The Wellcome Trust, ANZ
Bank Trustees, Andrology Australia, and The National Heart Foundation of
Australia.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work,
consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
I act as a consultant to the Australian government.
[=post hoc correction]
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: I am the sole director of a private physiotherapy practice in
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.
Dymphna Hermans, Trials
Search Co-ordinator Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group;
Trials Search Co-ordinator, Review Group Co-ordinator and Author, Cochrane
Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group; 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.
Steff Lewis, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group;
Convenor, Steering Group Executive; Member, Publishing Policy
Group; Editor, Cochrane Stroke Review Group; Co-Convenor, Statistical
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?
I am a statistician based in a clinical trials unit in
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 paid by the Cochrane Stroke Group for one day per week as statistical
editor.
Jordi Pardo Pardo, Centre Staff Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Administrator, Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre; Acting Review
Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Lung Cancer Review Group; Member, Monitoring
and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy
Advisory Group:
A. Financial interests
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: I am employed full-time by the Fundación de Gestió
Sanitària de l'Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, a not-for-profit
charity, and I devote all my time to the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre and the
Cochrane Lung Cancer Group. The Centre has received support from several
sources, including pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the Centre's module
in The Cochrane Library and on the Centre's website (www.cochrane.es).
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash
or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have received a one-off payment from an editorial company for
assessing an evidence-based nursing distance learning training.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options,
equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar
arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the
shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Rob Scholten, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Co-Convenor, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group
representative, Information Management System Group; Member, Statistical
Methods Group, and Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author,
Cochrane Back, Dementia and Cognitive Improvement, Depression Anxiety and
Neurosis, Heart, and Neuromuscular Disease Review Groups:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract
or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work,
consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation? 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.
Peter Tugwell, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of
Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member,
Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Feedback Management
Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review
Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I receive a stipend from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology for my
editorship of the Journal. I also receive honoraria from the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees
(in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes, from Abbott, Almirall, American College of Rheumatology, Astra Zeneca,
Aventis, Berlex, Biomatrix, Bristol Myers Squibb, British Medical Journal, Cadeuceus
Group, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Canadian
Medical Association Journal, Eli Lilly, Foundation for Better Health Care,
Glaxo-Welcome, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Innovus, Johnson & Johnson,
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Lilly Research, Medicine Group, Medicus,
Merck, Merck Frosst, Milbank Memorial Fund, Novartis, Ortho McNeil, Pennside,
Roche, Sandoz, Scios, Searle, Wyeth Ayerst, University of Minnesota, University
of British Columbia, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey,
University of Southhampton, UpToDate, VU University Medical Center in
Amsterdam.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind)
from a related organisation?
See #1 above.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
I receive royalties for Evidence Based Rheumatology book from BMJ Books as
well as royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins for Clinical
Epidemiology Textbook. I also receive editorial royalties from UpToDate.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of
interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Janet Wale, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative,
Quality Advisory Group; freelance editor and consumer representative on
Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australian health committees; consumer
for the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Musculoskeletal, Musculoskeletal Injuries,
and Heart Review Groups:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or
gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting
fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related
organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Elizabeth Waters, Field Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Member, Steering Group Executive; Steering Group
representative, Quality Advisory Group; Director, Health Promotion and
Public Health Field; Member, Child Health Field Advisory Board; Member,
Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Heart, Pregnancy and
Childbirth, Airways, and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review
Groups:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift,
commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct
research?
I have received funds from the NHMRC, Victorian Government Department
of Human Services, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and philanthropic
trusts. Colgate provided toothbrushes free of charge to a randomised
controlled trial on which I was CI, and we distributed
these as part of a multifaceted intervention program.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for
a related organisation?
Yes, from the World Health Organization, the Victorian Cancer Council, and
the Australian Research
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
I received a one-off payment for two book chapters in 'Evidence-based
Paediatrics and Child Health'.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a
position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options,
equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar
arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the
shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related
organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Narelle Willis, Cochrane
Review Group Representative (of Review Group Co-ordinators), Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Steering Group Executive; Steering Group
representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Review Group Co-ordinator,
Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Hepato-Biliary Review Group, External
Referee, Hepato-Biliary Review Group; Member, Screening and Diagnostic Tests
Methods Group; Author, Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Working Party for
Cochrane Review Groups Procedures Collection; Member, Abstract Committee for
the XIV Colloquium:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or
gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research?
I am funded by a Department of Health and Ageing (Australian Government)
grant.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees
(in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No: I am an
employee of The Childrens Hospital at Westmead and Associated Academic Staff
with the
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Hans van der Wouden, Representative
of all members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group;
Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Airways Group, Ear, Nose and
Throat Group, Skin Group; Member, Child Health Field:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or
gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research?
Yes: as an employee of Erasmus MC -
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees
(in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes, as a reviewer of papers for the BMJ I received several
vouchers from the BMJ Publishing Group, and a fee from The Lancet.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation?
Yes, as an employee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam,
I received 1623 euros from the BMJ Publishing Group for royalty fees for the
sale of reprints of a paper we published in the BMJ.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing
interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear
to be related to the primary interest? No.
Declaration
of interest of the Director of the Information Management System
Monica Kjeldstrøm, Director, Information
Management System, Nordic Cochrane Centre:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research,
or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? If yes, list.
No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind)
for an organisation? If yes, list. No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? If yes, list. No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a
position of management with a related organisation? If yes, list.
I’m employed by Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, as Director of the
Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System. My employment is
permanent but Rigshospitalet can change my position. Rigshospitalet provides my
only source of income. I am also a Director of the Collaboration Trading
Company.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? If yes, list.
I have been given, and continue to hold, shares in a small Danish biotechnology
company. I’m not able to trade in these and do not receive any income
from them. I will not influence the conduct of any review in which this company
might have a financial interest.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? If yes, list.
No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? If yes, list.
No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? If yes,
list. 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? If yes, explain. No.
Declarations of interest of Secretariat staff
Jini Hetherington, Administrator
and Company Secretary, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or
gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting
fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee
or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity
with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements
where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related
organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Nick Royle, Chief Executive Officer, The Cochrane Collaboration;
Member, Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Screening
and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or
gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to
conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work,
consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or
kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee,
employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options,
equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar
arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the
shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related
organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related
organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related
organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a
conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.