Minutes of meeting
of the
Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group
[These minutes were approved
by the Steering Group Executive on 4 December 2003.]
Subject
|
Item
|
|
Advisory
Group, Cochrane CENTRAL |
|
|
[Advisory]
Group, Cochrane Library Users’ |
|
|
Advisory
Group, Colloquium Policy |
|
|
Advisory
Group, Criticism Management |
|
|
Advisory
Group, Handbook |
|
|
[Advisory]
Group, Information Management System |
|
|
Advisory
Group, Quality |
|
|
Animal
studies, systematic reviews of |
|
|
Annual
General Meetings |
|
|
Auditors,
appointment of |
|
|
Behaviour,
process for dealing with unacceptable |
|
|
Business
Plan, development of |
|
|
Campbell
Collaboration, liaison |
|
|
CENTRAL
Advisory Group |
|
|
CENTRAL,
work done by the US Cochrane Center on |
|
|
Centres,
establishing new |
|
|
Centres,
report from entity representatives |
|
|
Centres,
responsibilities of Directors and staff |
|
|
Chief
Executive Officer, report from |
|
|
Cochrane
Library Users’ Group |
|
|
Cochrane
review, cost of producing a |
|
|
Cochrane
reviews, contact information for reviewers and co-reviewers of |
|
|
Cochrane
reviews, inclusion of information on harms in |
|
|
Cochrane
reviews, of diagnostic test accuracy |
|
|
Cochrane
reviews, outcome specific |
|
|
Cochrane
reviews, quality of |
|
|
Cochrane
reviews, updating of |
|
|
Collaborative
Review Groups, report from entity representatives |
|
|
Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group |
|
|
Colloquium,
Melbourne, 2005 |
|
|
Colloquium,
Ottawa, 2004 |
|
|
Colloquium,
sponsored registration for each entity for Ottawa |
|
|
Comments
and criticisms, process of |
|
|
Commercial
sponsorship and The Cochrane Collaboration |
|
|
Company
Secretary, new |
|
|
Conflict
of interest on corporate sponsorship |
|
|
Conflicts
of interest, declarations by Steering Group members |
|
|
Constitution
(Articles of Association), changes to the |
|
|
Consumer
Network |
|
|
Contingency
Fund expenditure |
|
|
Criticism
Management Advisory Group |
|
|
Developing
country initiative |
|
|
Developing
country representation on the Steering Group |
|
|
Diagnostic
test accuracy, report from working group on Cochrane reviews of |
|
|
Discretionary
Fund expenditure |
|
|
Exchange
Fellowship, Cochrane Collaboration |
|
|
Executive,
canvassing for dates of teleconferences |
|
|
Fields,
representation on the Steering Group |
|
|
Fields/Networks,
report from entity representative |
|
|
Finance,
Contingency Fund expenditure |
|
|
Finance,
cost of producing a Cochrane review |
|
|
Finance,
current situation and cash flow forecast |
|
|
Finance,
Discretionary Fund expenditure |
|
|
Finance,
registration of entities at Cochrane Colloquia |
|
|
Finance,
report and financial statements |
|
|
Finance,
support for Information Management System |
|
|
Finance,
table of risk assessment |
|
|
Funders’
Forum |
|
|
Funding,
sponsorship and, by the pharmaceutical industry |
|
|
Handbook
Advisory Group |
|
|
Harms
in Cochrane reviews, inclusion of information on |
|
|
Information
Management System Group |
|
|
Information
Management System, financial support for training needs |
|
|
Information
Management System, mandatory aspects of |
|
|
Information
Management System, progress report and development of |
|
|
Information
Management System, software platform for |
|
|
Information
Management System, support/training person(s) for |
|
|
Joanna
Briggs Institute, relationship with |
|
|
MeerKat,
proposal for support and development of |
|
|
Methodological
support, improving within The Cochrane Collaboration |
|
|
Methods
Groups, report from entity representative |
|
|
Monitoring
and Registration Group, report and budget from |
|
|
Ombudsmen |
|
|
Open
learning resources |
|
|
Publication
Arbiter |
|
|
Publishing
Policy Group, canvassing for dates of teleconferences |
|
|
Publishing
Policy Group, future role and membership of |
|
|
Quality
Advisory Group |
|
|
Quality
Improvement Manager, report and recommendations from |
|
|
Risk
assessment, table of |
|
|
Service
Level Agreement with Hilda Bastian |
|
|
Sponsorship
and funding by corporate bodies and pharmaceutical industry |
|
|
Steering
Group meetings at the next two Cochrane Colloquia |
|
|
Steering
Group, continuity of the Chair of |
|
|
Steering
Group, developing country representation on |
|
|
Steering
Group, Field representation on |
|
|
Steering
Group, membership of sub- and advisory groups of |
|
|
Steering
Group, monitoring of |
|
|
Steering
Group, next two meetings of (in Bergamo and Ottawa) |
|
|
Steering
Group, outstanding action items |
|
|
Steering
Group, report from Co-Chairs of |
|
|
Systematic
reviews of animal studies |
|
|
Teleconferences,
finding dates for sub-group |
|
|
Trading
Company, report from Directors of |
|
|
Transcultural
sensitivities |
|
|
US
Cochrane Center, work done on CENTRAL by |
|
|
Web
site, strategic future of the Collaboration’s |
|
|
Web
site for consumers, service level agreement with Hilda Bastian |
Minutes of meeting of the
Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group
Barcelona, Spain
25, 29 and 30 October 2003
[These
minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 4 December 2003.]
Present: Claire Allen, Gerd Antes, Kathie Clark, Mike Clarke (Chair for items 24
to 30), Mark Davies, Jon Deeks, Vittorio Demicheli (first and second meetings
only), Davina Ghersi, Sally Green, David Henderson-Smart, Jini Hetherington
(minutes), Monica Kjeldstrøm, Steff Lewis, Alessandro Liberati (for item 26.1
only), Jim Neilson (Chair for items 1 to 23), Samuel Ochieng (first meeting
only), Jordi Pardo, Kim Pollard (second and third meetings only), Nick Royle,
Silvana Simi (first and second meetings only), Peter Tugwell (second meeting
only), and Janet Wale.
1. Welcomes, apologies for absence, introductions, and approval of
the agenda
Jim welcomed everyone to the meeting, in particular
Janet Wale who would become a member of the Steering Group formally at the
Annual General Meetings on 29 October 2003.
Apologies had been received from Peter Tugwell for the first of the
Steering Group meetings in Barcelona.
The agenda was approved.
2. Declarations
by Steering Group members of potential conflicts of interest
Monica
Kjeldstrøm declared a potential conflict of interest in
any discussions of the Information Management System, and said that she was
also representing the Trading Company Directors at this meeting. No other general potential conflicts of
interest were declared, but it was noted that conflicts of interest on specific
items should be raised at the relevant part of the meeting.
3. Matters arising from minutes of previous
meeting, not on this agenda
9.2 Final report
and recommendations from the Quality Improvement Manager: Sally reported that one of the appendices to
Nancy Owens’ report, containing a wealth of information about CRG editorial
processes, had been reformatted and was ready to be put onto the Collaboration
web site with links to the resources mentioned in it. She was given approval to use the Review Group Co-ordinators’
e-mail discussion list (‘adminors’) to approach individual RGCs to ensure
accurate links to these resources, and would be asking those RGCs attending the
Barcelona Colloquium for their views as to whether the appendix of CRG
editorial processes should be made available on the web site immediately, or
not until some quality assurance checks had been made, and examples of best
practice had been identified (see also item 24.11 below).
Action: Sally
15.1 Centre Directors’
recommendations re responsibilities of Directors and staff: Gerd and Sally advised that they would
report on this after discussion at the Centre Directors’ meeting on 26 October
2003.
Action: Gerd, Sally
15.2 Process for dealing with
problems involving unacceptable behaviour:
Nick reported that work on this matter was in progress.
Action: Nick
18.2.2 Establishing new Cochrane
Centres: Sally reported that the
Centre Directors had agreed that there may be potential for establishing
Cochrane Centres in areas of the world with poor coverage (for example, in
south-east Asia). Kathie reminded
everyone that it had been agreed in Melbourne "that the Steering Group
should look strategically at whether there are specific gaps in the
geographical coverage of The Cochrane Collaboration that would benefit from the
establishment of additional Centres. It
was also agreed that this strategic review (which was labelled as an important
but non-urgent issue) should also seek to identify any specific gaps in the
Collaboration’s coverage of areas of health care." In the MRG report to this meeting of the
Steering Group, the MRG had provided suggestions that the Steering Group should
form a working group, and who should be included in its membership. Gerd reported that a meeting was to take
place during the Colloquium to discuss responsibility for French contributors
to The Cochrane Collaboration.
Action: Nick, Gerd
18.2.5 Open learning resources: Kathie reported that the MRG had discussed
this, and had felt that it would be inappropriate for them to be involved in
following up on this matter. It was
therefore agreed that the committee that is being formed as part of the
Handbook Advisory Group to manage open learning material should take this on
after the Barcelona Colloquium (see also item 24.9 below).
Action: Sally
18.7 Criticism Management
Advisory Group: Mike reported that it
should be possible to propose a new Convenor (or Co-Convenors) for this Group
in November, and that he would circulate details to the Steering Group and the
members of the CMAG to canvas their opinions as soon as possible (see
also item 24.8 below).
Action: Mike
18.11 Cochrane-Campbell liaison: Jini reported that Harris Cooper would be
attending the second Steering Group meeting to represent The Campbell
Collaboration.
19.1.2 Cost of producing a
Cochrane review: Nick reported that
Miranda Mugford had been commissioned to work on this project, and that the
results would be reported to the Steering Group when they are ready.
19.1.4 Transcultural
sensitivities: Jordi reported that
he is preparing a short paper based on a longer document that Michele Deeks had
produced for The Cochrane Collaboration, for discussion by the Steering Group
at its next meeting at the end of February 2004.
Action: Jordi
24 Cochrane Collaboration
Exchange Fellowship: Sally reported
that she would shortly be handing over to the Secretariat the materials needed
to administer this fellowship. The
Quality Advisory Group would provide a selection committee from among its
members when applications had been received.
The existence of the Fellowship should be publicised via the entity
e-mail lists, CCInfo and Cochrane News.
Action: Sally, Jini
26 ‘Comments and
Criticisms’ process: It was agreed
that a new system should be established for handling comments and criticisms of
Cochrane reviews on the web site. This
would be discussed at a separate meeting on 28 October 2003. Jim or Mike would report back to the
Steering Group via e-mail after the Colloquium.
Action: Jim, Mike
29 Changes to the
Constitution of The Cochrane Collaboration: This item was deferred for consideration at the next meeting of
the Steering Group at the end of February 2004.
Action: Mike, Jini
4. Report from
the Co-Chairs
Mike reported that he and Jim would
be highlighting the following items in their presentation during the Opening
Ceremony of the Barcelona Colloquium:
the new publishing arrangement with Wiley, the appointment of the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO), the new Strategic Plan, the future development of the
Information Management System (IMS), the various ongoing copy editing projects,
the conversion of Colloquia abstracts into electronic format, the availability
of funds for work on CENTRAL, and the decision about Cochrane reviews of
diagnostic test accuracy.
Action: Jim, Mike
5. Financial
and legal matters:
5.1 Cash flow forecast, and
current financial position: Nick
explained that the Collaboration’s current financial position is relatively
strong but that, on current forecasts, reserves would drop below the proposed
contingency fund level in the financial year 2007-08. The cash flow forecast enables forward planning during the length
of the contract with John Wiley and Sons.
Nick reported that he had received conservative figures from Wiley for
income during the coming years. Mike
drew attention to the grant of 30,000 US dollars that had been made by the
Rockefeller Foundation: this had funded
the Kenneth Warren Prize for 2003 and had also provided 15,000 US dollars
towards developing country stipends for the Barcelona Colloquium. Mike undertook to write to the Rockefeller
Foundation after the Colloquium to thank them again, and to describe how their
grant had been spent.
Action: Mike
5.2 Discretionary and
Contingency Fund expenditure
5.2.1 Discretionary Fund: Mike suggested that consideration be
given to raising the ceiling of the Discretionary Fund to £3,000 per item, with
a £15,000 annual limit. This was
agreed, to take effect immediately, and the decision should be announced to all
entities and reflected in the Cochrane Manual.
Action: Jini
5.2.2 Contingency Fund: Mike suggested that the emergency reserve to
maintain the central functions of The Cochrane Collaboration for one year
should be £350,000 in recognition of the increased size of the Secretariat and
costs of The Cochrane Collaboration.
This was agreed, and the decision should be reflected in the spreadsheet
showing the Collaboration’s current financial position that is considered by
the Executive and the Trading Company Directors on a monthly basis.
Action: Jini
5.3 Annual General Meetings
(AGMs): It was agreed that the Steering Group and Trading
Company Directors should be seated at one end of the meeting room during the
Annual General Meetings, facing the participants and on the same floor level as
them. Jim would introduce the members
of the Steering Group and the Trading Company Directors by showing a PowerPoint
presentation of a photograph of each person.
He would also explain at the start of the meeting that the Trading
Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Charity, and that the AGMs of both
companies were occurring concurrently.
5.3.1 Report and Financial
Statements: There were no questions
about these documents that had been circulated to all entities via e-mail well
in advance of the Colloquium.
5.3.2 Table of risk assessment: This table, which is a requirement of the
auditors, was noted but not discussed.
5.3.3 Agenda, format and
conduct of the AGMs: The final
agenda of the Annual General Meetings was discussed and agreed. The Chair of the Selection Panel, Bongani
Mayosi, would present the Kenneth Warren Prize to the winner at the beginning
of the meeting. Jim would chair the
meeting for agenda items 1 to 3 and 10, and would ask Jos Kleijnen (Director of
the Trading Company) to chair the meeting for agenda items 4 to 9.
Action: Jim
5.3.4 New Company
Secretary: Jini was absent from the
meeting for the following discussion, arising from the fact that Malcolm
Newdick had resigned as Company Secretary of both the Charity and the Trading
Company, with effect from 29 October 2003.
The Trading Company Directors had asked Jini to take on this
responsibility. Concern was expressed
by the Steering Group that Jini should not be put in a position of conflict or
compromise, and it was agreed to invite her to become Company Secretary of the
Charity as well as of the Trading Company, with the Steering Group (i.e. the
Treasurer) signing off on the audited accounts. Jini returned to the meeting and was asked to become Company
Secretary of both companies. She
accepted this role and was asked to inform Companies House.
Action: Jini
5.3.5 Appointment of
auditors: It was agreed to
recommend the reappointment of the existing auditors, Mazars, at the Annual
General Meetings. Jini should advise
all interested parties of this decision.
Action: Jini
6. Membership of the Steering Group’s sub- and
advisory groups
A grid of proposed membership of sub-
and advisory groups for the year to October 2004 was circulated to all members
of the Steering Group at the meeting.
Jim encouraged anyone who was unhappy with the group(s) to which they
had been provisionally allocated for the coming year to speak to him or Mike
before the second Steering Group meeting on 29 October 2003. At this second meeting there were no
objections to the proposed membership of sub- and advisory groups. Nick, Silvana and Janet were asked to
discuss how best to represent the interests of the Consumer Network on the
Publishing Policy Group.
Action: Nick, Silvana, Janet
7. Comments from outgoing Steering Group members
Vittorio
spoke about the heavy time commitment involved in being a member of the
Steering Group, but said that he had enjoyed this experience. Samuel echoed his remarks, and highlighted the progress that had been made on
the developing country initiative, and various quality improvement
projects. Jim thanked them both very
much for their contributions to the work of the Steering Group.
8. Field
representation on the Steering Group
8.1 Field
representation: Vittorio reported
that only four Fields had entered into the discussion of the issue of no-one
having come forward to replace him on the Steering Group in the 2003
elections. It had been proposed by that
group that there should be two Field representatives on the Steering Group to
share the workload. Jim said that there
was no strong argument for this, as reflected in the results of the survey of
entities that Davina had conducted fairly recently with respect to the balance
of entity representation on the Steering Group. Jon supported the suggestion of a job-share for those entities
that only had one representative on the Steering Group (i.e. Fields and Methods
Groups), with two people sharing the one representative position. Kathie suggested that perhaps one
representative could attend the Steering Group meetings, and the other could
join the Monitoring and Registration Group and attend the meetings of that
group. All Steering Group members were
asked to canvas for interest among Field members during the Colloquium, and
this issue should be revisited at the next Steering Group meeting on 29 October
2003 (see also item 29.2 below).
Action: All Steering Group members
8.2 Developing country
representation: Sally pointed out
that there would not be a Steering Group member based in a developing country
once Samuel stepped down. She was asked
to discuss this issue with Xavier Bonfill who is responsible for taking the
lead in the ‘developing country initiative’ (see also item 24.17 below).
Action: Sally
9. Status of
the new Information Management System
9.1 Mandatory
elements of the IMS: Monica re-introduced the need for an information
management system (IMS) in The Cochrane Collaboration, and gave a report on
progress to date. She suggested that
the following parts of the IMS should be mandatory for CRGs: Contact Management, Document Management and
RevMan. She recommended that the last
component of the new IMS, Tracking and Workflow Management, should not be
mandatory. This was agreed by the
Steering Group. With respect to Contact
Management, it was agreed that because of the need to facilitate
document-sharing related to the production of reviews, it should be mandatory
from the outset to maintain the contact details of editorial base members of
Collaborative Review Groups (i.e. Review Group Co-ordinators, Trials Search
Co-ordinators and Co-ordinating Editors), all other editors and all contact
reviewers. It should also be mandatory
for the contact people of all other entities to be entered into and maintained
in the Contact Database. This should
come into effect by July 2004, and Monica would disseminate this decision and
timetable to all entities. See
also item 24.10 below, relating to the decision to add non-contact
reviewers to the list of people whose contact details should be in the Contact
Database, since they sign the Permission for Publication form, and may have
limited details of their address (institution and country) published in
Cochrane reviews.
Action: Monica
9.2 Choosing a
software platform for the IMS: Monica
also drew attention to the fact that the Information Management System Group
(IMSG) had recommended that an independent consultant should be approached for
an evaluation of the IMS Team’s recommendation on the most appropriate software
platform for the document management component of the new IMS. Nick was asked to continue trying to obtain
such independent advice. Gerd agreed to
ask the Centre Directors at their meeting in Barcelona for help in identifying
whether there was someone in the Collaboration who would be qualified to check
the advisability of opting for the recommended solution. Monica reported that the saving by
proceeding with that solution would be approximately £25,000.
Action: Nick, Gerd
9.3 IMS central
support person(s)/trainer(s): The
Steering Group approved the outline budget for this initiative in
principle. Monica explained that she
would be circulating a draft proposal widely as soon as the appropriate
consultations within the Collaboration had taken place, before recruitment was
initiated to fill the position(s). Nick
was asked to keep the need for this support under annual review.
Action: Monica, Nick
9.4 Financial
support for IMS training needs: The
above discussion led to consideration of financial support for meetings in the
UK, Continental Europe, Australia and, possibly, elsewhere specifically to
train editorial staff in the use of the Information Management System. Monica was asked to provide a written
proposal for the Steering Group to consider.
Action: Monica
10. Work done by
the US Cochrane Center on CENTRAL in the past year
Mike explained that the US Cochrane
Center had requested an extension of the period within which this work should
be completed (at no extra cost), and that this had been approved in principle
by the Steering Group Executive. The
Steering Group saw no problem with this, and Mike agreed to let Kay Dickersin
know.
Action: Mike
11. Registration
of entities at Cochrane Colloquia
Mike explained that some entities
were not being represented at all Colloquia, and suggested that the
registration fee might be a barrier to attendance. It was agreed to provide a Collaboration-sponsored registration
fee to every entity for the Ottawa Colloquium from core funds. This would be a sensible way of distributing
funds fairly throughout the organisation.
The early registration fee for Ottawa will be $750 CDN (approximately
£336 sterling) per entity (totalling approximately £28,560 sterling for all 85
entities). The Steering Group would
assess after the Ottawa Colloquium whether this should be repeated for future
Colloquia. Mike agreed to announce this
at the Annual General Meetings. Administration
of this initiative would need to be worked out between the Secretariat and the
organisers of the Ottawa Colloquium.
Action: Mike, Jini, Kathie
12. Conflict of
interest on corporate sponsorship
(see also items 29.1 and 29.3 below)
Jim described the sensitivity and
diverse views on this issue, and the background to the document he had recently
circulated to all entities about it, which was intended to stimulate discussion
during the Colloquium. A recent article
in the British Medical Journal had highlighted the current debate within the organisation on
this issue (Ray Moynihan, ‘Cochrane
at crossroads over drug company sponsorship’, BMJ 2003;327:924-926; see http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7420/924). The
current policy (as stated in the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook) is that it is
unacceptable for a single funder with a vested interest to sponsor an
individual review. It was agreed to
discuss this again at the second Steering Group meeting on 29 October, after
entity representatives had discussed it within their entity meetings, so that
the Steering Group’s position could be reported at the Annual General Meetings
later that day.
13. Report from the Chief Executive Officer
Nick
described his first seven months in the position of CEO. He paid tribute to the Secretariat team for
their support of him, the Steering Group, and its sub- and advisory groups, and
their responsiveness and helpfulness to members of the organisation. He described the difficulties he had
encountered in considering making an application to the European Union for
funds, and reported that the Research Director General of Life Sciences at the
EU would be attending part of the Colloquium.
Nick also reported on recent meetings at the US Cochrane Center, with
members of the Campbell Collaboration, and with a radio station manager in the
USA with an interest in disseminating information about The Cochrane
Collaboration: Nick’s impression was
that there was increasing interest in systematic reviews in the USA. He also reported on the first few months of
the publishing contract with John Wiley and Sons. He circulated a two-page document at the meeting outlining his
thoughts on some key issues facing the organisation, which he would also
circulate electronically after the Colloquium so that the Steering Group could
send him their feedback.
Action: Nick
14. Development
of a Business Plan
Nick described the fact that a
business plan should be a living document that changes according to the purpose
for which it is being considered in any one context. He had therefore produced a draft business plan and suggested
that, after redrafting and discussion by the Steering Group, any entity in The
Cochrane Collaboration would be able to adapt it for their purposes. It was noted that any modifications would
need to be clearly identified as such and have a clearly stated purpose. Nick’s draft had been circulated for
discussion at the Funders’ Forum the previous day, and Sally raised concerns as
to the process for taking matters to that group before they had been presented
to and discussed by the Steering Group.
Jim explained that Dan Fox of the Milbank Memorial Fund, who convenes
the Funders’ Forum, is keen to involve major policy-makers and funders in
supporting the Collaboration. Nick
should canvas entities’ views on this initiative and report back to the next
Steering Group meeting at the end of February 2004. Jini was asked to circulate the draft business plan to the
Steering Group by e-mail, requesting feedback in time for the Executive to
discuss this in their next teleconference on 4 December 2003.
Action: Nick, Jini
15. Strategic future for the Collaboration’s web
presence
Nick discussed his proposals for the
strategic future of the overall web presence of The Cochrane
Collaboration. He agreed to consider
the options for maintaining access to the abstracts on the main web site, and
bring these options to the Publishing Policy Group for discussion; in the meantime, the
suggestion to remove the abstracts from the web site should be removed, and on
this basis the document was approved. He explained that Dave Booker is working on a template
for automatic updating of entity web site content in line with the main web
site, which will be available to entities for their use. Integration of the main site with different
entity web sites was an issue for consideration in the longer term. Janet pointed out that consumer information
on the web site is currently under development.
Action: Nick
16. Service
Level Agreement for Hilda Bastian’s web site for consumers
Mike declared that he is potentially
conflicted as he is a co-editor of the Cochrane Consumer Digest with Hilda
Bastian, although he has no financial involvement with the Digest, nor has he
been involved in the production of the latest issue. Janet, Samuel and Silvana are conflicted as members of the
Governing Council of the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network
Incorporated. Jordi may be conflicted
since the Spanish Health Ministry is soon to provide information for consumers
in Spanish. Sally is potentially
conflicted as Director of the Australasian Cochrane Centre, which is the
reference Centre for the Consumer Network.
Davina is conflicted since she has been invited to be on the board of
Hilda’s new Foundation. Claire is
potentially conflicted as a member of the Consumer Network.
The issue of translation arose because of the paper that had been circulated
recently by Hilda Bastian on translation issues. It was agreed that translation is an important issue for the
Collaboration, and Centre Directors should continue to discuss this. It is also an issue for discussion by the
Publishing Policy Group, which has not yet been sent Hilda’s paper on
translation issues. Nick was asked to
suggest to Hilda that this paper should be redrafted as it currently has the
appearance of being a Cochrane document, whereas it is intended to be a
document relating to the web site that she is developing.
Action: Nick
After much discussion, Mike summarised the position with regard to the conflict
surrounding the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network Incorporated as an
incorporated association. The Steering
Group asked Nick to intervene to dissolve the incorporated association as
speedily as possible. It was agreed
that he had permission to seek Australian legal advice to do this, and would
provide the Steering Group with a costing for this as soon as possible after
the Colloquium. He agreed to discuss
these decisions with the Governing Council and with Hilda during the
Colloquium. It was agreed that, whilst
the Service Level Agreement (SLA) route was agreed in principle, there should
be no negotiations with Hilda about an SLA until the situation with regard to
the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer Network Incorporated had been
resolved.
Action: Nick
17. Continuity
of the Chair of the Steering Group
Mike reminded everyone that at the
next Steering Group meeting at the end of February 2004, members would be
deciding on the person or people they wished to take over from himself and Jim
as Chair/Co-Chair/Deputy Chair in Ottawa in October 2004. He asked everyone to consider the
possibility of having one person serve for one year and the other for two
years, so that there would always be an overlap in future, to provide
continuity.
Action: All Steering Group members
18. Improving
methodological support in The Cochrane Collaboration
18.1 Sally introduced this item on behalf of herself and
Phil Alderson as Co-Convenors of the Quality Advisory Group (QAG). She explained that the QAG makes a clear
differentiation between initiatives related to organisational quality (e.g.
resources arising from the Quality Improvement Manager’s report) and methodology
issues. Jon raised the issue of
people’s expectations of Methods Groups:
they cannot be expected to run a Help Desk type of service, but are
frequently expected and perceived to be doing this. He said that no members of Methods Groups had managed to do any
quality assessment exercises, due to the absence of resources. He had recently surveyed the statisticians
in the Collaboration, and it appeared that only three or four full-time
equivalent statisticians are paid specifically to do Collaboration work.
18.2 The Steering Group
endorsed Jon’s request that the following paragraphs (a) to (e) be added to The
Cochrane Manual and communicated to all entities:
(a) New Methods Groups may need to focus
their efforts on conducting research and producing advisory material before
they can be in a position to provide useful one-to-one advice to CRGs, Centres
and Fields. Methods Groups will state
in their module their current ability to provide advice.
(b) When putting in funding applications
for health research projects it is expected that CRGs, Centres and Fields
should consider including budget lines to fund the methodological and
statistical support that they require to complete those projects.
(c) CRGs should ensure that their named
Methodological or Statistical Consultant is able to commit regular time to the
work of the group.
(d) The Steering Group endorsed the model
of Methodological and Statistical Consultants being CRG editors, to enable them
to play a greater role in ensuring and improving methodological quality of
Cochrane reviews.
(e) Everyone involved in CRGs, Methods
Groups, Centres and Fields should look for opportunities to get new
methodologists involved in the work of the Collaboration, and ensure that they
are linked into the relevant Methods Groups.
Action: Jini, Jon
18.3 The Steering Group
agreed in principle that the costs of holding a one-off meeting in mid-2004 of
Methods Group, Handbook Advisory Group and Quality Advisory Group Convenors and
Co-Convenors should be met from central funds.
Jon was asked to provide a detailed breakdown of estimated costs to the
Executive for approval, and to liaise with the Secretariat to implement the
decision.
Action: Jon
18.4 The Steering Group
agreed in principle to make available a source of funding to which people can
apply for methodological projects that aim to improve the quality of Cochrane
reviews, training materials and methodological guidelines. Jon should bring a detailed breakdown of
estimated costs of this initiative to the Executive for approval.
Action: Jon
19. Inclusion of
information on harms in Cochrane reviews and outcome specific reviews
Jon had circulated two case studies
on this issue to the Steering Group by e-mail shortly before this meeting. In Peter Tugwell’s absence, Jim agreed to
ask the Co-ordinating Editors to discuss the pros and cons of outcome-specific
reviews at their forthcoming meeting.
In certain circumstances outcome-specific reviews for adverse effects
and harms are sensible, and the Handbook Advisory Group should look at
providing guidance in this area. At the
28 October meeting of the Steering Group, Jon reported that he had attended
various meetings during the week at which there had been discussion of the need
for The Cochrane Library to include a new type of document that pulled
together all relevant results from Cochrane reviews that are needed to answer a
clinical question. An example was a
document that combined reviews of all drugs in the same class, or all
alternative treatments for the same condition, or all outcomes related to a
particular use of an intervention. Nick
reported that Wiley had been having discussions along related lines, and he
would discuss this with them and inform the Steering Group. He was asked to organise the first meeting
of a working group to look at the grouping of such ‘umbrella’ reviews, to
include Jon, Peter, David, Steff, Janet, Andy Oxman and a representative from
Wiley.
Action: Jim, Jon, Peter, David,
Steff, Janet, Sally, Nick
20. Systematic
reviews of animal studies
It was broadly agreed in principle
that systematic reviews of all forms of research (including pre-clinical
evidence) are a good thing, but that the Steering Group felt unable to support
the detail of the document on this issue that had been put before them. Mike agreed to convey this position to Shah
Ebrahim, Ian Roberts and Peter Sandercock, the Co-ordinating Editors who had
asked for the support of the Steering Group.
Action: Mike
21. Proposal for
MeerKat support and development
Sally and Mike declared a conflict of
interest on this issue. Davina
explained that most Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) are not using the
MeerKat software, but that those who are doing so have found it extremely
helpful. The Schizophrenia Group had
generously volunteered to provide advice and support to CRGs wishing to convert
their registers into MeerKat. Monica
clarified that the first version of the IMS would not include a study-based
trials register. A few CRGs submit
their trials registers to CENTRAL via MeerKat.
This is due to be discussed at the RGCs’/TSCs’ meeting and their
feedback should be brought back for further discussion by the Steering Group at
its second meeting on 29 October. Nick
noted that input should also be sought from the CENTRAL team to ensure future
compatibility.
Action: Davina
22. Relationship
with The Joanna Briggs Institute
It was agreed that everyone working
on systematic reviews in the Joanna Briggs Institute in Adelaide, South
Australia, should be encouraged to liaise with the relevant Cochrane
Collaborative Review Group(s), but that the Steering Group was not in a
position to adopt the other requests in the letter from the Joanna Briggs
Institute. Sally agreed to liaise with
Mike in preparing an encouraging reply to Alan Pearson, the Executive Director
of the Joanna Briggs Institute.
Action: Sally, Mike
MEETING ON 29 OCTOBER
2003
23. Report from the working group on Cochrane
reviews of diagnostic test accuracy
Monica pointed out that she and Rasmus Moustgaard had provided feedback
on
the software aspects of the report. Jon confirmed that their feedback, together with that from others obtained at this meeting, would be incorporated in an update of the documents. He reported that several meetings of the working group on Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy had taken place during the Barcelona Colloquium, and had been very productive. The top priorities of the group are to produce a Cochrane Reviewers’ Diagnostic Reviews Handbook by the end of 2004, and to produce a software specification so that the RevMan development team would be able to include support for reviews of diagnostic tests in the next mandatory release of RevMan (version 5) by mid 2004. The German Cochrane Centre had agreed to fund a workshop in April 2004 to help this working group to meet. Jon had attended the recent meeting of the Funders’ Forum and recognised that obtaining funding for this initiative needed to be well planned. One issue was how to fit in with existing Collaboration structures (i.e. on the various advisory groups to the Steering Group). Another issue was whether this group should register formally as a Field. Jon suggested that members of several entities should become involved as soon as possible to work out what would and would not work, and he agreed to take steps to identify such people. Davina congratulated Jon on doing a fantastic job of leading this working group, and the rest of the Steering Group echoed this view.
Action: Jon
24. Sub- and Advisory Groups to the Steering Group
Mike said that he would be writing to
the Convenors of the sub- and advisory groups to thank them for their hard work
in the past six months. He said that
Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert, the recently appointed Managing Editor at Wiley, was
the person to approach to ascertain who should represent Wiley on a specific
advisory group.
Action: Mike
24.1 Finding dates for
sub-group teleconferences: It was
agreed that CCSG sub-group members should in future be canvassed a year in advance
for their availability to participate in sub-group teleconferences, since it
had become increasingly difficult to find dates to suit the majority. The suitability of the next two meeting
dates should be reviewed at the end of each meeting in case unforeseen
circumstances had arisen to prevent anyone from participating.
Action: Claire
24.2 Future role of the
Publishing Policy Group (PPG): Nick
reported that he had included comments from the existing members of the PPG in
his discussion document on the future role of this sub-group of the Steering
Group. Monica asked for clarification
about which group should be responsible for considering requests for access to
the Parent Database, both for research and administrative purposes. Although until now it had been the
responsibility of the PPG, it was agreed that it was more appropriate for the
Executive to decide on such requests in future. The document should reflect the fact that the membership of the
PPG is approved by the Co-Chairs of the Steering Group and the PPG Convenor (if
this is someone other than one of the Co-Chairs). Mike agreed to advise Dave Booker and Chris Williams that they
are no longer on the PPG since they represent operational matters, and Nick was
asked to discuss with Silvana and Janet which of them would join the PPG (see
also item 6 above). The
document was approved after Nick had made these changes, and should be added to
the ‘Structure, remit and membership of groups accountable to the Steering
Group’ on the web site.
Action: Nick, Mike, Claire
24.3 Monitoring
and Registration Group (MRG): Samuel
Ochieng was not present for this discussion and Kathie therefore spoke to the
MRG report on his behalf. She advised
that Ruth Jepson had recently resigned from the MRG and that she anticipated
Mark Lodge’s resignation also, leaving the Group with only five members: four additional members were therefore
needed. Kathie would discuss additional
members with the MRG and propose their names to the Steering Group as soon as
possible.
Action: Kathie
It was agreed that the likely convenors of probable entities should be added to
the relevant e-mail lists to facilitate communication before their formal
registration. Kathie reported that the MRG had discussed and
accepted the responsibility for undertaking the preliminary review of the
registration of new entities once the Steering Group has been informed of the
application. Until now, the Steering
Group has been the first to review the applications and then they were
forwarded to the MRG.
Action:
Claire
The Steering Group approved the registration flow chart and process for new
entities, and the updating and revision work done on the entity core functions,
which would be presented to the Executive for final approval. There was recognition that the monitoring
process is mandatory for all entities, and that the new Information Management
System will help to facilitate this process.
Monica asked Claire to send her the entity monitoring forms so that the
information to be collected could, where possible, be worked into the IMS.
Kathie reported that the MRG believes that all Centres should have advisory boards, and
that it would like to recommend that the Chair of the Steering Group contacts
those Centres who do not have an advisory board explaining why these boards are
essential. Since the Centre Directors
had decided at their Barcelona meeting to develop a set of guidelines for
Centre advisory boards, it was agreed to wait and review the document being
prepared by them.
Action: Kathie
In response to the suggestion that an
external evaluation of the MRG should take place, Nick said that he would be
looking at the remit and membership of the Monitoring and Registration Group
next, rather than this waiting to be considered as part of the evaluation of
the Steering Group in 2005.
Action: Nick
24.4 Monitoring the Steering
Group: Peter said he would be
providing a document on this for the next Steering Group meeting at the end of
February 2004.
Action: Peter
24.5 Cochrane
CENTRAL Advisory Group (CCAG): Davina
reported on the recent meeting of the CCAG, which a Wiley representative had
attended. There was no disagreement
about the new members who had been proposed to join this Group. Discussion about the future of CENTRAL is an
agenda item for discussion at the next Steering Group meeting at the end of
February 2004. Davina reported that the
new name for this Group had not been discussed at the recent CCAG meeting.
Action: Jini
24.6 Cochrane
Library Users’ Group (CLUG): Mike
and Nick agreed to look into the process for deciding the date of the
‘retirement’ of the Update Software-Cochrane Library interface, and clarify
this to Julie Glanville, the Convenor of the CLUG. The Steering Group would decide when the Wiley interface was
sufficiently developed to replace the Update Software interface. It was noted that Julie Glanville had
expressed her wish to step down as Convenor; Mike agreed to discuss this with
her.
Action: Mike, Nick
24.7 Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group (CPAG): Sally was asked to confirm
to the CPAG the Steering Group’s requirement for there to be two of its members
on the local organising committee of each Colloquium to facilitate
communication, even though perhaps necessarily at long distance.
Sally reported that the document ‘Standard Operating Procedures for
Cochrane Colloquia’ was now available to future Colloquium hosts, and would be
put onto the Collaboration web site.
Action: Sally, Jini
24.8 Criticism
Management Advisory Group (CMAG): Mike reported that someone had volunteered to take
over from Chris Cates as Convenor of the CMAG, and that someone else had also
expressed interest in becoming Co-Convenor, but that he did not feel it was
appropriate to name them now. He would
send further details to the Steering Group as soon as possible (see also
item 3.18.7 under ‘Matters arising’ above).
Action: Mike
24.9 Handbook
Advisory Group (HAG): The Steering Group approved
explorations of the possibility of making a printed version of the Cochrane
Reviewers’ Handbook available for sale, which would be updated every two
years. This would enable members of
Methods Groups to achieve academic recognition for contributing to this
product. The current and updated
versions would continue to be available free of charge via the Collaboration
web site. Sally was asked to prepare a
written proposal, so that this could be discussed at the next Steering Group
meeting at the end of February 2004.
Action: Sally, Jini
Sally thanked Jon, Julian Higgins and Doug Altman for the enormous amount of
work they had done in revising Section 8 of the Handbook, and said that this
revised section would be available to coincide with the publication of Issue 1,
2004 of The Cochrane Library.
The Steering Group would be looking to the HAG to advise on the format
of consumer synopses, and it would be the Steering Group’s responsibility to
approve any changes to this format that the HAG suggests. Mark volunteered to help in updating this
part of the Handbook.
Action: Sally, Mark
Kathie had said earlier in the meeting that the MRG had agreed it would be
inappropriate for them to be responsible for identifying how much work is going
on in entities in the area of ‘open learning’ (or ‘off campus distributed
learning’ or ‘distance learning’) (see also item 3.18.2.5 under ‘Matters
arising’ above). Management of
the open learning material had now been merged with that of the Handbook.
The request for a budget of £1,000 for the current financial year (April 2003
to March 2004) was approved.
Action: Sally, Jini
24.10 Information
Management System Group (IMSG):
24.10.1 Membership of the IMSG: Monica
reported that Wiley had requested to have another voting member of their staff
on the IMSG; however, Mike pointed out that this would be contrary to the terms
of the existing contract between Wiley and The Cochrane Collaboration. Nick agreed to let Wiley know that they
should bring a written proposal to the Steering Group. The Steering Group agreed to Mike taking
over from Monica as Convenor of the IMSG because of her potential conflict of
interest as Director of the IMS. Monica
would continue to be a member of the IMSG in her capacity as Director of the
IMS, and the remit and membership list of the IMSG should be updated
accordingly.
Action: Nick, Monica, Claire
24.10.2 Contact details of
co-reviewers: It was agreed that in
addition to the contact details of members of editorial bases, editors and
contact reviewers (see also item 9.1 above), those of
co-reviewers should also be maintained in the Contact Database.
Action: Monica
24.11 Quality
Advisory Group (QAG): Sally
reported that the QAG had decided, with Executive approval, that the
information collected from entities in 2002 by the Quality Improvement Manager,
Nancy Owens, should be put onto the Collaboration web site, and entities should
be advised of this, as soon as possible.
As a second stage, some quality assurance checks would be made, and
examples of best practice would be identified (see also item 3.9.2 above). Sally would update the Steering Group at its
next meeting at the end of February 2004 on the activities of the QAG in this
regard. Sally and Nick were asked to
discuss the remit and membership of the QAG.
Action: Sally, Nick
24.12 The
Ombudsmen: Gill Gyte (on behalf
of herself and Peter Langhorne as Ombudsmen) had given a presentation during
the opening plenary session of the Colloquium.
Gill and Peter had advised that they had nothing specific to report to
the Steering Group in relation to their role as Ombudsmen during the past six
months, in addition to the information they had included in their six-monthly
report.
24.13 The Publication Arbiter: David
had also made a presentation during the opening plenary session of the Colloquium,
and reported that he had nothing he wished to raise with the Steering Group in
relation to his role as Publication Arbiter during the past six months. He was encouraged to enlist the support of
other members of the Steering Group whenever necessary.
24.14 The Funders’ Forum: Jim reported on the discussions that had
taken place during the meeting of the Funders’ Forum on 24 October 2003. It was agreed that the selection of people
invited to attend these meetings should be broadened, and Sally reported that
the Centre Directors had agreed to provide the names of people whom they wished
to be invited to future such meetings.
She agreed to work with Mike on the invitation list, and to ask the
Chair of the Funders’ Forum, Dan Fox, for a clear written description of its
purpose that could be circulated to all entities and put on the Collaboration
web site. Dan Fox should also be asked
to schedule meetings of the Funders’ Forum after the first Steering Group
meeting at future Colloquia, rather than before it.
Action: Sally, Mike
24.15 Cochrane-Campbell
liaison: Mike introduced Harris
Cooper who had agreed to attend the second Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group meeting on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. Harris explained that he is a member of the
Campbell Collaboration Steering Group and also co-ordinator of the Campbell
Methods Groups. He said that he
welcomed the opportunity to attend this meeting, and would like there to be a
reciprocal arrangement for a member or ex-member of the Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group to attend Campbell Collaboration Steering Group meetings in
future, and for this preferably to be the same individual for a couple of years
at a time. He explained that The
Campbell Collaboration meets twice a year, and the next meeting will be in
February 2004 in Washington DC, USA.
The intention is for the February meetings to take place within the USA,
and for the October meetings to take place outside it. Jim and Mike agreed to identify someone by
the end of 2003 with both the experience and the time (preferably a past or
current member of the Steering Group) to attend the February 2004 meeting of
The Campbell Collaboration, if Lisa Bero no longer wishes to continue in this
role or is unable to commit to providing continuity of attendance at Campbell
Collaboration Steering Group meetings for the next two years.
Action: Jim, Mike
24.16 Trading Company Directors’
report: Monica reported that, in
the absence of anyone coming forward from within the Collaboration as a potential
Director to replace Malcolm Newdick who had resigned, the Trading Company
Directors had approached an ex-member of the Steering Group to become a
Director, and would keep the Steering Group informed if this person accepted
the position. Monica also drew
attention to the fact that the Trading Company had originally been established
to recoup the tax on the royalties from sales of The Cochrane Library,
and that a trading company might no longer be necessary if proposed changes to
UK charity law come into force. Nick
was asked to discuss this situation with both the Collaboration’s solicitors
and its accountants, whose initial advice on this matter had differed, then to
confer with the Trading Company Directors, and to bring a recommendation to the
next Steering Group meeting at the end of February 2004 if the issue had not
been resolved by then.
Action: Monica, Nick
24.17 Developing country
initiative: Sally reported that she
had attended the recent meeting of the working group of this initiative on
David Henderson-Smart’s behalf. She
reported on the breadth of opinion in the working group as to whether or not a
network or an advisory group to the Steering Group should be established in
order to make progress on this initiative.
Sally was asked to request Xavier Bonfill, who is responsible for taking
the lead, to provide a written proposal to the Steering Group for discussion at
their next meeting at the end of February 2004, and to let him know that Peter
and Janet have volunteered to participate in this initiative (see also
item 8.2 above).
Action: Sally
25. Reports from entity representatives:
25.1 Collaborative
Review Groups:
25.1.1 MeerKat: Jim took over chairing this item because
Mike declared a conflict of interest due to the fact that the UKCC is
responsible for developing the MeerKat software. Davina reported that at the meeting of Review Group Co-ordinators
and Trials Search Co-ordinators on 26 October 2003, she had discovered that some
CRGs are not currently using MeerKat to manage their specialised registers only
because they had understood that it would not be supported in the longer
term. It was agreed that Davina should
ask the CCAG to provide a written proposal to the Steering Group on whether or
not to fund a pilot to assess whether or not the MeerKat software could be
considered to become part of the new Information Management System. It was agreed to defer the funding request
for core resources for MeerKat until the next meeting of the Steering Group at
the end of February 2004. Mike will
inform Sally Hopewell, who had submitted the request.
Action: Davina, Mike
25.1.2 Updating of reviews: Peter reported that the Co-ordinating
Editors had discussed at length the many problems surrounding the updating of
reviews in their meeting on 28 October 2003.
Before the Colloquium, Paul Garner had asked that reviews in areas where
it was extremely unlikely that new trials would be done should remain in The
Cochrane Library as they provide the most current available evidence. Peter agreed to provide a document on the
problems of, and possible solutions for, updating reviews for the Steering
Group to discuss at their meeting in Ottawa in October 2004. He said that the representatives from Wiley
who had attended this meeting had dealt very clearly with the main concerns on
several issues.
Action: Peter
25.2 Methods Groups: At the meeting on 30 October, Jon
reported that there were no important issues for the Steering Group to discuss
arising from the meeting of the Methods Group Convenors earlier that day.
25.3 Fields/Networks: Vittorio reported that he had
agreed during the recent meeting of Fields to represent Fields at the Steering
Group meeting at the end of February 2004.
He said that two members of Fields had expressed their willingness to
share this role with effect from then.
Kathie said that a Field representative was urgently needed on the
Monitoring and Registration Group, and Vittorio agreed to discuss this with the
two interested Field members. Since
attendance at meetings seemed to have been a major stumbling block to people
wishing to represent Fields in the 2003 Steering Group elections, it was
suggested that if two people were about to share the role of Field
representative, one might be willing to represent Fields at the Steering Group
meetings and the other to represent Fields at the MRG meetings and participate
in the work of that sub-group of the Steering Group.
25.4 Centres: Gerd
drew attention to the document that had resulted from discussion and agreement
by the Centre Directors as to a set of guiding principles for Centre Directors
and staff. He explained that all other
entities than Centres have someone whom they can approach officially if they
find themselves in a serious situation of conflict within The Cochrane
Collaboration, and it was agreed that the Ombudsmen should perform this role
for members of Centres in future. Gerd
should amend the ‘Guiding principles’ document to this effect, and forward it
to Jini for inclusion in the Cochrane Manual.
Action: Gerd, Jini
Sally said that she would shortly be circulating a template to all concerned,
so that information about the special functions of Cochrane Centres could be
included in their modules in The Cochrane Library in future.
Action: Sally
Kathie advised that the Centre Directors had agreed to establish four working
groups to bring specific issues to the next Centre Directors’ meeting at the
end of February 2004. The four strategic issues
that the Centre Directors identified as priorities to work on are: (1) Identifying strategies to establish
stable funding for Centre activities; (2) Developing a database of ‘good
stories’ about the value and positive impact of The Cochrane Collaboration; (3)
Raising the awareness of The Cochrane Library and how to use it; and (4)
Identifying and developing responses to the needs of developing countries.
It
was agreed that concerns about the quality of individual Cochrane reviews
should continue to be addressed by the ‘Comments and Criticisms’ system. Concerns about the quality of more than one
review by a CRG should be referred to the Director of the reference Cochrane
Centre, and concerns about the quality of the systems and processes of reviews
across more than one CRG should be referred to the Quality Advisory Group.
Gerd reported that a productive meeting had been held during the Colloquium to
discuss establishing a French language network, and said that he would continue
to be involved in further discussions and would report back to the Steering
Group on progress made.
Action: Gerd
25.5 The Consumer Network
25.5.1: Janet said that she was
continuing to work towards closing down the Cochrane Collaboration Consumer
Network Incorporated as soon as possible, and that this had been agreed by the
recent Annual General Meeting of this organisation. Janet reported that members of the Consumer Network had agreed to
apply to the Monitoring and Registration Group to register it formally with the
Collaboration as a Field. Vittorio
undertook to facilitate the discussion by the MRG and to ensure that the
Consumer Network is not required to establish and maintain a specialised
register (other Fields are now required to do so as one of their core
functions) because of the existence of the Consumers and Communication
Collaborative Review Group. Janet would
be reporting on the long-term plans of the Consumer Network to the Centre
Directors and the Steering Group at their meetings at the end of February
2004.
Action: Janet, Vittorio
25.5.2: Nick reported that he
had informed Hilda Bastian that there could be no negotiation about a Service
Level Agreement (SLA) until the current situation in relation to the Cochrane
Collaboration Consumer Network Incorporated had been resolved. He read out a letter from Hilda to the
Steering Group requesting that, pending negotiation of an SLA for 2004, she be
allowed to continue to provide a continuous service to Collaborative Review
Groups and to the public on consumer synopses.
Nick was asked to convey to Hilda in writing that she has permission
from the Steering Group to continue providing her service on consumer synopses
for Issue 4, 2003, with no commitment beyond that. His letter should state that the Steering Group makes no commitment
to extending an interim arrangement.
The intention is to negotiate an SLA only once the current situation has
been resolved.
Action: Nick, Jim
26. The next two
Steering Group meetings:
26.1 Italy: 29 February, 1 and 2 March 2004: Alessandro Liberati, Director of the
Italian Cochrane Centre, attended the Steering Group meeting for this item
only, and proposed that the location of the meetings of the Centre Directors
and the Steering Group be in Bergamo, which is as close to Malpensa Airport as
the centre of Milan, and where hotels are much less expensive than in
Milan. There were no objections to this
change of location. Laura Coe of the
Italian Cochrane Centre will be co-ordinating the arrangements for these
meetings with Jini’s help, and should suggest several options for how to spend
the day between the Centre Directors’ and Steering Group meetings.
Action: Jini
26.2 Ottawa: 1 and 4 October 2004: It was agreed that the Steering Group
should meet for a full day (i.e. from 9.00 a.m. to 6 p.m.) on the day before
the Ottawa Colloquium starts (i.e. Friday 1 October 2004), and for another
half-day after the Annual General Meetings.
Action: Kathie, Jini
Post hoc note: The first Steering
Group meeting has been scheduled to take place on Friday 1 October from 9 a.m.
to 6 p.m., and the second on Monday 4 October from 10.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. The Annual General Meetings will take place
on Sunday 3
October from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.
27. The next two
Cochrane Colloquia
27.1 Ottawa 2004: Kathie
reported that arrangements for the XII Cochrane Colloquium were going according
to plan, and that she had no issues she wished to raise with the Steering
Group.
27.2 Melbourne 2005:
Sally reported that arrangements for the XIII Cochrane Colloquium were
in hand, and had distributed postcards advertising the event. The Steering Group agreed to decide at their
next meeting at the end of February 2004 whether to have three half-day
meetings during the Melbourne Colloquium, or to continue the current practice
of meeting for one full and one half day.
Action: Sally, Jini
28. Spreadsheet
of members’ outstanding action items
Mike asked Steering Group members to
continue to let Kim know when their Action items have been done. Kim and Jini had done a cleaning-up exercise
of the spreadsheet before including it with the Steering Group agenda for
Barcelona, but members should be responsible for advising Kim themselves when
their action items have been completed and need to be removed from the spreadsheet.
Action: All Steering Group members
29. Any other business:
29.1 Sponsorship and funding by
the pharmaceutical industry
(This
item reports the discussion that took place during the meeting on 29 October
2003. See also items 12 above and
29.3 below.)
Sally reported that the Centre Directors had agreed that this was such an
important issue that The Cochrane Collaboration should not be rushed into any
decision to change the current policy.
Janet reported that there were opposing views in the Consumer Network,
but that there was a desire for wider consultation. Jim reported on the diversity of opinion expressed by the
Co-ordinating Editors. Jon reported
that that the Methods Group Convenors had not yet met to discuss this
issue. It was agreed that the current
policy that no review should receive funding from a single source should not be
changed at this time: this should be
reconfirmed at the Annual General Meetings.
A timeline for discussion should be agreed and publicised. As Director of the UK Cochrane Centre, Mike
expressed a conflict of interest over two Cochrane reviews about which concerns
had been expressed. In its role as
reference Cochrane Centre, the UKCC had advised that these reviews did not breach
the current policy.
It was agreed to hold an extra meeting of the
Steering Group on 30 October from 1 p.m. to decide on the process for
taking forward discussions and decisions on this issue, and on what
should be done about Cochrane reviews that breach the current policy (see
also item 29.3 below), following the opportunity to hear opinions at
the Annual General Meetings. The
members of the Collaboration should be told that, although discussions on this
topic had been going on since last year, it had been important to wait for the
Colloquium to allow for face-to-face discussion. It was agreed that, following the consultation process, it would
be up to the Co-Chairs and the Publication Arbiter to discuss reviews that
appear to be in breach of Collaboration policy.
Action: Jim, Mike
29.2 Field representation on
the Steering Group: Kathie reported
in Vittorio’s absence from this part of the meeting that Field members had met
during the Colloquium and discussed the issue of the current lack of Field
representation on the Steering Group (see also item 8.1 above). Liz Waters and Jodie Doyle had agreed to put
themselves forward in the next election to occupy one position on the Steering
Group, and Vittorio had agreed to attend the Steering Group meeting at the end
of February 2004 so that Fields have a voice at that meeting. It was agreed that Jodie Doyle should be
asked to join the Monitoring and Registration Group immediately as an ex
officio member. No decision was made as
to whether an ex officio member of the MRG could be its Convenor or
Co-Convenor: this should be discussed
by e-mail after the Colloquium.
Action: Kathie
MEETING ON 30
OCTOBER 2003
29.3 Commercial sponsorship and
The Cochrane Collaboration
(This
item reports the discussion that took place during the meeting on 30 October
2003. See also items 12 and 29.1
above)
All Steering Group members were
present at this specially arranged extra meeting held on 30 October from 1.00
to 2.30 p.m., with the exception of Vittorio Demicheli and Samuel Ochieng (who
had left the
Steering Group the previous day), Silvana Simi and Peter Tugwell. Jon Deeks was present from 1.00 to 1.30
p.m., and reported that the Methods Group Convenors had now met and discussed
this issue, and expressed the same view as the other entities. Monica Kjeldstrøm was present from 1.00 to
2.10 p.m., and Nick Royle from 2.00 to 2.15 p.m. Jini Hetherington took the minutes, and Claire Allen and Kim
Pollard of the Secretariat were also present for this session, chaired by Mike
Clarke.
The
wishes expressed at the Annual General Meeting of The Cochrane Collaboration on
29 October 2003, that this matter should not be rushed and that wide
consultation was needed, were noted.
It
was agreed that firstly an e-mail should be sent to the contact people of all
Cochrane entities during the week beginning 3 November 2003. This e-mail ('Document 1') should describe
the process of consultation to be followed, highlight the complexity of the
issue, and explain that a fuller document is in preparation on which members of
The Cochrane Collaboration will be asked to comment. The contact people of all entities will be asked to forward the
e-mail to the members of their entity.
There
was much discussion of the scope of 'commercial' conflicts of interest. Sally declared a conflict of interest in
contributing to this item as, should the current scope be extended, there may
be a conflict of interest between her conducting Cochrane reviews of
physiotherapy and her ownership of a physiotherapy practice. Nick also declared a conflict of interest in
relation to what decisions may be taken in the future about which sources of
funding he should, or should not, seek as CEO.
It was agreed that all Steering Group members should declare their
potential conflicts of interest in the module of The Cochrane Collaboration
that is published in The Cochrane Library and may be available soon on
the Internet. The appropriate format
and content of such declarations is still to be determined.
A
second document is to be prepared for wide consultation within The Cochrane
Collaboration. This would relate to the
funding of reviews, the funding of CRGs, the funding of other entities, and the
funding of other sorts of activities in The Cochrane Collaboration. This document would draw on input from Lisa
Bero and others, and contain a list of many ways in which funding by commercial
interests, including the pharmaceutical industry and producers and sellers of
drugs and medical devices, might be offered or sought for activities within The
Cochrane Collaboration. Davina, Mark
and Steff agreed to work with Jim and Mike on the wording of this 'Document
2'. It should be sent to all entities
by the second week of December 2003 and put on The Cochrane Collaboration web
site. Kathie would arrange for an
announcement to be made in Cochrane News pointing to the web site. Jini would arrange for a special e-mail
address to be created, to which people should send their comments. Comments from members of the Collaboration
would be requested by the end of January 2004, in order for members of the
Steering Group to review the feedback and for the Executive to discuss it in
preparation for discussion at the next Steering Group meeting at the end of
February 2004.
A
third document should bring together all the feedback from entities on this
issue into a draft policy document (‘Document 3’), for consideration by the
Steering Group at their next meeting at the end of February 2004. It was recognised that the amount of work
involved in this would depend on the quantity and complexity of the feedback;
decisions about who would help in the preparation of this document were
deferred until the feedback period is underway.
A
fourth document should be prepared during the Steering Group meeting at the end
of February 2004. This would contain
the Steering Group's policy statement on commercial sponsorship. It should include a date by which this
policy would be reviewed. This document
(‘Document 4’) should then be disseminated to all Cochrane entities via the
e-mail discussion lists, CCInfo and Cochrane News, and added to The Cochrane
Manual.
30. Thanks to the host and the Secretariat
Mike
expressed the thanks of the Steering Group to the organizers of the Barcelona
Colloquium, and especially to all the staff of the Iberoamerican Cochrane
Centre, for a most enjoyable and stimulating Colloquium. The hospitality of the Spanish hosts, and
their thoughtful arrangements of all aspects of the conference, was greatly
appreciated. Mike also thanked the
staff of the Secretariat for their efficient organisation of the agenda and
related materials. Gerd expressed
thanks to the Co-Chairs on behalf of all members of the Steering Group.
*****