Minutes of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting,
[These minutes were
approved by the Steering Group Executive on 31 May 2007.]
|
Subject |
Item no. |
|
Academic
vs practical evidence-based health care |
35.2; 35.3 |
|
[Advisory]
Group, Cochrane Library Users’ (CLUG) |
20.3 |
|
Advisory
Group, Colloquium Policy (CPAG) |
20.4 |
|
Advisory
Group, Feedback Management (FMAG) |
20.5 |
|
Advisory
Group, Handbook (HAG) |
20.6 |
|
[Advisory]
Group, Information Management System (IMSG) |
20.7 |
|
Advisory
Group, Quality (QAG) |
20.8 |
|
Advisory
Groups, budget requests for 2007-2008 |
24.4 |
|
Advisory
Groups, proposed reporting to the Executive by the |
16.1 |
|
Bill
Silverman Prize, proposal for |
28 |
|
Budget,
proposed Steering Group and Secretariat, for 2007-08 |
24.3 |
|
Budgets,
sub- and advisory group requests, for 2007-08 |
24.4 |
|
Campbell
Collaboration report |
20.9 |
|
Carbon
footprint, reduction in relation to Cochrane Colloquia |
31.2 |
|
Cash
flow forecast |
24.2 |
|
CENTRAL,
the future of |
9 |
|
Centre
issues |
21.4 |
|
Chief
Executive Officer’s report |
4 |
|
Co-Chair
of the Steering Group [election of] |
15 |
|
Cochrane Library, publication of The |
11 |
|
Cochrane
Library Users’ Group ( |
20.3 |
|
Cochrane
Opportunities Fund |
5 |
|
Cochrane
products (non-scientific), translation of |
13 |
|
Cochrane
Prioritisation Projects Fund |
6 |
|
Cochrane
Review Group (CRG) issues |
21.1 |
|
Cochrane
Review Groups, succession planning for |
29 |
|
Cochrane
reviews, planning for implementation of changes to |
8 |
|
Colloquia,
reducing the carbon footprint of |
31.2 |
|
Colloquia,
dates of future |
22.1; 22.3 |
|
Colloquia,
invitations to host |
23.3 |
|
Colloquium
2006 in |
31.1 |
|
Colloquium
2007 in |
22.1; 23.1 |
|
Colloquium
2008 in |
22.3; 23.2; 35.4 |
|
Colloquium
2009 in |
23.3 |
|
Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) report |
20.4 |
|
Commercial
sponsorship policy, three-year review of |
27 |
|
Decision-making,
delegated responsibility within The Cochrane Collaboration |
16.2 |
|
Declarations
of interest |
2; Appendix 3 |
|
Developing
Countries Network, funding request from |
25.2 |
|
Diagnostic
Test Accuracy Studies Register, progress report |
19 |
|
Discretionary
Fund expenditure |
30 |
|
Dublin
Colloquium, lessons learned from webcasting plenary sessions |
31.1 |
|
Editorial
board, proposal for an |
10; Appendix 1 |
|
Elections
to the Steering Group in 2007 |
35.1 |
|
Entities
bidding for funds in open competition |
25.1.2 |
|
Entities,
financial income to and distribution across |
25.1 |
|
Environmental
sustainability |
31 |
|
Evidence-based
health care, academic versus practical |
35.2; 35.3 |
|
Executive
Group, delegating decision-making responsibility to |
16.2 |
|
Executive
Group, proposed expanded remit for the |
16 |
|
Executive
Group, proposed reporting to, by Advisory Groups |
16.1 |
|
Feedback
Management Advisory Group (FMAG) report |
20.5 |
|
Field/Network
issues |
21.3 |
|
Financial
income to entities |
25.1 |
|
Financial
position and cash flow forecast |
5.2 |
|
Financial
status of the Collaboration and of Cochrane entities |
25 |
|
Five-year
review of the Steering Group |
14;35.5;Appendix 2 |
|
|
23.2; 35.4 |
|
Funding
of and across entities |
25.1 |
|
Funding
request, Cochrane Developing Countries Network |
25.2 |
|
Funding
to support multiple entities |
25.1.3 |
|
Handbook
Advisory Group ( |
20.6 |
|
Implementation
of changes to Cochrane reviews, planning for (and training) |
8 |
|
Information
Management System Group ( |
20.7 |
|
Management
Plan, Strategic Plan and |
separate document |
|
Methods
Group issues |
21.2 |
|
Mid-year
Steering Group meeting, |
22.2 |
|
|
20.2 |
|
Opportunities
Fund |
5; 25.1.2; 25.1.3 |
|
Prioritisation
Projects Fund |
6; 25.1.3 |
|
Prize,
proposal for Bill Silverman |
28 |
|
Publication
of The Cochrane Library (Wiley report) |
11 |
|
Publishing
Policy Group (PPG) report |
20.1 |
|
Quality
Advisory Group ( |
20.8 |
|
Register
of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies progress report |
19 |
|
Review
of commercial sponsorship policy (three-year) |
27 |
|
Review
of the Collaboration, Strategic |
17 |
|
Review
of the Steering Group, five-year |
14;35.5;Appendix 2 |
|
RevMan
5, status of and release plans |
7 |
|
RevMan
5, training for (implementation of changes to Cochrane Reviews) |
8 |
|
São
Paulo Colloquium and Steering Group meeting, 2007 |
22.1; 23.1 |
|
Secretariat
and Steering Group budget 2007-2008 |
24.3 |
|
Silverman,
Bill, proposal for a prize |
28 |
|
|
23.3 |
|
Sponsorship
policy (commercial): three-year review |
27 |
|
Spreadsheet
of current financial position and cash flow forecast |
24 |
|
Spreadsheet
of outstanding action items |
33 |
|
Steering
Group and Secretariat budget 2007-2008 |
24.3 |
|
Steering
Group, elections to the |
35.1 |
|
Steering
Group five-year review |
14;35.5;Appendix 2 |
|
Steering
Group meetings, dates of future |
22; 23; 35.2 |
|
Steering
Group members’ declarations of interest |
2; Appendix 3 |
|
Strategic
discussion in |
35.2 |
|
Strategic
Plan and Management Plan |
separate document |
|
Strategic
review of the Collaboration |
17 |
|
Sub-
and Advisory Group budget requests 2007-2008 |
24.4 |
|
Succession
planning for Cochrane Review Groups |
29 |
|
Trading
Company Directors, issues raised by the |
26 |
|
Translation
of Cochrane products (non-scientific) |
13 |
|
Treasurer’s
report |
24 |
|
Vellore,
Steering Group mid-year meeting in 2008 |
22.2; 35.2 |
|
Webcasting
the |
31.1 |
|
Websites
management, status report and funding request |
12 |
|
Wiley
report (publication of The Cochrane
Library) |
11 |
Minutes of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group meeting,
[These minutes were
approved by the Steering Group Executive on 31 May 2007.]
Present: Godwin Aja, Lorne Becker
(Chair for items 1-13, 16-24.3, 29-36), Lisa Bero (Chair for item 15),
1 Welcomes;
apologies for absence; introductions; approval of the agenda
Lorne welcomed everyone
to the meeting. He thanked Rob for the excellent arrangements he had made for the
joint special discussion attended by the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive, and
the two and a half day Steering Group meeting. Lorne welcomed Jonathan Craig
and Ruth Foxlee to their first Steering Group meeting, and conveyed Sally
Green’s apologies for absence.
2 Steering Group members’ declarations
of interest
No declarations of interest were made in addition to
those that had been circulated with the background documents for this meeting,
and attached to these minutes as Appendix 3.
3 Introduction from the Co-Chairs
Lorne gave a brief introduction to
the meeting. He noted that the agenda contained a number of substantive issues
which promised some interesting discussions. The redesign of the meeting agenda
had allowed time for two focused half-day discussions on particular topics, as
well as for adequate discussion of other important issues. Lorne thanked those
who had prepared background papers for the agenda. He noted that these papers
are an essential component of the redesign of the agenda, and play a large role
in making it manageable. He also indicated his belief that background papers facilitate
more informed decision-making, and help those proposing issues to the Steering
Group to do a better job of presenting them. Lorne asked for continuing feedback on the
format of the Steering Group agenda, which has evolved with the aim of being more
strategically focused.
Among
the important issues to be discussed were decisions about the first round of
submissions to the Opportunities Fund, proposals for prioritization projects,
and changes to the remit of the Executive. Lorne also noted that the role of
Co-Chair has continued to expand and now demands more time than can reasonably
be expected from two volunteers who have full-time job responsibilities in
other areas. This does not create an immediate problem for the Collaboration
because one of the current Co-Chairs is retired, but efforts should be made in
the next eighteen months to find ways to lighten the load for his successor.
Creation of the role of an Editor-in-Chief, to include many of the current
responsibilities of the Convenor of the Publishing Policy Group, would be one
possible approach. A move to a three-year Chair succession model, as outlined
in the background paper on the Steering Group review (agenda item 14), would
probably help as well. Workload for the Co-Chairs is an issue that needs
addressing as part of the Collaboration-wide review.
4 Chief Executive Officer’s report
Nick
based his report under the headings of product, structure, governance, finance
and communications. He noted that production levels appeared to have levelled
off, and that the most recent Issue of The
Cochrane Library flattered production because of the inclusion of 22
reviews from the Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. Sales of licences
and national provisions continued to be healthy, although the large increases
of recent years may now also have levelled. The Steering Group celebrated
recent national provisions for
Action: Nick
5 Cochrane Opportunities Fund
Rob
left the meeting for this item because he was involved in one of the proposals.
Jon, as Chair of the Opportunities Fund Selection Panel, summarised that there
had been seventeen applications, and that the Selection Panel had consisted of
eight members of the Steering Group. Each application had been rated by two
panel members; Jon and Nick had read all the applications. Those which did not
fulfil the criteria were identified as unfundable. The five applications rated
as a priority to fund were then identified from the remainder. There was
unanimous ratification by the Steering Group of four of the proposals that the
Selection Panel recommended should be funded. There was lengthy discussion of
the fifth proposal: on a vote (from which Peter Tugwell abstained) it was
agreed to fund this proposal. Jon agreed to write to the successful applicants;
he would also explain to the unsuccessful applicants the reasons why their
applications had not been fundable. In next year’s call for proposals, it was
agreed to make it clearer what type of projects stood most chance of being
funded, i.e. those which would have Collaboration-wide benefits. The focus
within the Strategic Plan for next year’s round should be announced as soon as
possible, to give people more time than in this first round in which to work up
new proposals. Jon would provide some text for the next Steering Group
Bulletin.
Action: Jon
6 Cochrane Prioritisation Projects Fund
Due to the involvement of Steering Group members in a
number of the applications to this Fund, it was decided that they should be
assessed by a different group than the Steering Group as quickly as possible.
Jonathan, Lisa and Lorne would identify a Co-ordinating Editor, a Centre
Director and a Field Co-ordinator who are not on the Steering Group to form the
panel, and come up with their recommendations within one month; these would not
need ratification by the Steering Group.
Action: Jonathan, Lisa, Lorne
7 Status
of RevMan 5 and release plans
This
item was taken after item 11. Monica referred to the recommendation in her
background paper that the transition period in which reviews are allowed in
both RevMan 4 and RevMan 5 format as publications in The Cochrane Library be expanded from nine months, as previously agreed, to two years. The previous decision
had been made by the Steering Group on the basis that changeover from the old
to the new format would be automated. The RevMan team had been able to make a
better assessment of the work involved in moving a review from RevMan 4 to RevMan
5, and had found that the conversion would benefit from manual intervention.
Much of the conversion of reviews from RevMan 4 to RevMan 5 would be automated,
and those reviews that would need manual intervention could be supported by
central resources. Nevertheless, some of the remaining changes (such as
assessing the byline and author affiliations) might depend on local knowledge.
In addition, Monica stressed that the process of rolling out RevMan 5 to author
teams would need a lot of support. More experience needed to be gained as to
the challenges that the transition to RevMan 5 would present to those who would
be involved in the process. She reported that consultation had taken place with
Wiley, the RevMan Advisory Group, the Editorial Management Advisory Group, and
the IMS Support Team: the feedback from the three latter groups had been
supportive that the transition period should be extended, but from a publishing
point of view, Wiley would prefer to keep to the original timescale.
Firm timelines for the various components of the transition (availability of
RevMan 5, ability of the Wiley team to convert RevMan 5 documents for
publication in The Cochrane Library,
availability of training and training schedules, etc.) are unavailable at
present. Deborah PG noted that a prolonged transition period could lead to
problems for the publisher, who will have to operate two separate rendering
systems for a longer period than the original nine months. Also, users may be
confused by the prolonged presence of two different review formats, and the
need to support two formats could impair Wiley’s ability to make needed changes
to the new format if these are found to be necessary. Lorne agreed to set up
and chair an ad hoc implementation group to look at the relevant timelines and
processes for conversion and to make recommendations about the transition. The
group will include Donna, Hans, Lorne, Monica, Narelle, and representation from
the Wiley technical team responsible for the design of the new format for
Cochrane reviews. The group will consult with Review Group Co-ordinators, the
Handbook Advisory Group, the Information Management System Group, and other
relevant groups.
While
it was agreed that the period of nine months for rollout is now in question, no
revised timeline was agreed on, pending the recommendations from the ad hoc group.
Information about the timelines will be published in a future Steering Group
Bulletin.
Action: Donna, Hans, Lorne, Monica,
Narelle, Deborah PG
8 Planning
for implementation of changes to Cochrane Reviews
There was discussion of
the background paper that raised the question of how training would be provided
for authors, editors, Review Group Co-ordinators or others concerning the
multiple changes coming with RevMan 5, including new types of reviews
(methodology, diagnostic, and overviews); new tables (risk of bias, studies
awaiting assessment, summary of findings); new statistical methods; new options
for display of data; and new definitions and terms for important events in the
evolution of a review (such as ’Update’). The IMS Support Team will provide
training and support for software issues related to Archie and RevMan, but will
not be able to support third-party software such as the software package that
will be used in the preparation of Summary of Findings tables. The Summary of
Findings group is willing to be involved in this, but would need resources in
order to provide support to authors. In addition, no organized approach to
training in non-software related issues has been planned. The issue had been
discussed briefly at the Centre Directors’ meeting, but no action plan had
resulted from that discussion. Methods Groups will assist with training, but
are only able to do so at Colloquia. It was suggested that it would be good to
include Internet-based distance learning materials with an assessment of
competence component, and it was noted that pilot projects of this nature were
planned.
Donna offered to take
the lead in mapping out the way forward, and put together a proposed budget for
consideration by the Executive.
Action: Donna
9 The
future of CENTRAL
Lorne
highlighted that the Steering Group fully recognises the value of the
contribution that Trials Search Co-ordinators (TSCs) make to the work of the
organisation. He reported that the agreed interim measures are in progress;
however, the long-term strategy is still unresolved. The issues raised in the
background paper, including the uncertainties about the specific details of the
proposed replacement for CENTRAL, the possible costs, and the lack of a host
entity were discussed in some detail. Ruth stressed the TSCs’ concern as to the
importance of the resumption of submission of registers to a central database,
and urged that discussion of the longer-term plans should not delay moving
forward with this issue as quickly as possible. Gail Higgins’ findings, to be
reported on to the Steering Group soon, via the Publishing Policy Group, should
inform the decision to be made on this. In the meantime, the Steering Group
recognises and agrees with the TSCs’ concerns about the need to resolve quickly
any issues impeding the interim measures. Ruth was therefore asked to organize
a working group of TSCs to advise the Steering Group on these issues, whose
focus should be twofold. In the short term, they should focus on the process of
submission of registers. The lessons learned in that process would then be
helpful in investigating the longer term future of CENTRAL.
To ensure optimum inter-operability between the reference management software
and the development of CENTRAL, the Steering Group asked that the TSC working
group investigate a range of packages with a view to establishing which single
package might best be used Collaboration-wide. The working
group’s remit should encompass other key issues to be resolved, as determined
by the group itself. Mindful of the importance of this process to the
Collaboration, and of the need to ensure a bottom-up approach, the TSC working
group should call on the Steering Group for an appropriate level of resources
to ensure a good process and widely acceptable outcome. In order to keep the
redevelopment process moving, a conclusion on the reference management software
issue would be appreciated well before the next Colloquium, in October 2007. The working group should
report back to the Steering Group, through the Publishing Policy Group, at
frequent intervals between now and October.
The
Steering Group agreed that a project manager should not be put in place until a
scoping exercise has been undertaken as to how this longer-term process would
be taken forward, including an estimate of the resources needed to do so. The
input of the TSCs through their working group will be invaluable to this
exercise.
Action: Ruth
10 Decision
time: Proposal for an editorial board
This item
was discussed at the beginning of the afternoon on 20 April. The previous day’s
discussions of the paper presented by the Co-ordinating Editors had received
unanimous support in principle from those present (Centre Directors,
Co-ordinating Editors and Steering Group members). It was recognized that the
proposal was primarily about a method of organizing Co-ordinating Editors to
fulfil their role more effectively and hence to improve the quality of reviews,
that their efforts would be co-ordinated with other relevant Collaboration
groups and initiatives (including the Handbook Advisory Group and the Quality
Advisory Group), and that both the structure and function of the proposed
’editorial board’ would be expected to evolve over time. Lisa reported that the
Centre Directors were supportive of the proposal and eager to collaborate on
projects related to quality. A number of implications of the proposal were
discussed. The question was raised of whether all Co-ordinating Editors were
supportive of the concept and would co-operate in the quality initiatives to be
put in place, but the Steering Group was assured that all Co-ordinating Editors
had been given ample opportunity to have input into the paper and that all were
supportive. It was pointed out that the aims, roles and responsibilities, and
terms of reference laid out in the document did not include some of the
functions commonly expected for an editorial board, and it was suggested that a
more appropriate name for the Co-ordinating Editors’ group might be identified.
If the eventual aim is to have this group fulfil the roles of a traditional
editorial board, it would be important to incorporate additional members other
than Co-ordinating Editors. The Steering Group invited the Co-ordinating
Editors to bring a further proposal outlining the next steps to the Executive.
Action: Jonathan, Peter
Financial
support will be needed for an individual to be appointed with credibility and
previous editorial experience, to spend a proportion of their time over the
next 18 months to talk to all the different constituencies in order to develop
the terms of reference to flesh out this idea of an editorial board. Staff time
and travel would also need funding, and the proposal to the Steering Group
Executive would be expected to incorporate these items. Views should be sought
of others than Co-ordinating Editors who have an important role in the
preparation of reviews. Nick suggested that Wiley could assist in fleshing out
these proposals. The initiative received wholehearted approval in principle
from the Steering Group and was seen as an excellent example of a way of channelling
some of the Collaboration’s income to an activity that will support the efforts
of all Review Groups. Although the
consideration of an Editor-in-Chief was not part of the Co-ordinating Editors’
proposal, it was seen to be closely related and they were encouraged to include
this idea in their ongoing discussions. Sophie Hill had agreed to produce an
appendix to the report of the previous day’s discussions. Jonathan and Peter
would produce a summary of these decisions for the Steering Group Bulletin.
Action: Jonathan, Peter
11 Publication of The
Cochrane Library
This item was taken first, after
the agenda had been approved and introductions had been made. Deborah
Pentesco-Gilbert introduced the way that Wiley is now looking forward with
regard to publishing the Collaboration’s product. She pointed to the chart in
the background papers showing the growth in royalties. Deborah explained that
dependency on revenue from national licences was less than it had been
hitherto; a stable growth rate of 7-10 per cent is expected in the coming year:
excluding national provisions, 41 per cent of revenue is coming from North
America, 42 per cent from
Action: Deborah PG, Deborah Dixon
12 Websites
management: status report and funding request
Lorne outlined the recent improvements in development of
the Collaboration’s main and entity websites, and in particular noted that
savings to entities produced by the centralised entity website template system
were now roughly equal to the core website budget. The Steering Group approved
forward funding of 100,000 GBP per year for three years, adjusted for inflation
over that period. The funding request of 24,000 GBP for user interface redesign
for rollout in 2009 was approved in principle; Nick should seek more
information before it could be enacted. The funding request pertaining to
internationalization initiatives was not approved, as this was covered in the
separate proposed Steering Group initiative for translation of Cochrane written
material (see below). The request for funding for a consumer taxonomy for
abstracts was rejected as too expensive; Dave Booker should be asked to
consider whether this could be done at much lower cost, and from within the
core budget. It was pointed out that linkage between our website and that of The Cochrane Library has been
strengthened, and that our site is increasingly steering people towards our
reviews.
Action: Nick
13 Translation
of Cochrane products
Nick had prepared a background paper requesting approval
in principle for translation of non-scientific material on the website such as
training materials, the five introductory leaflets to The Cochrane
Collaboration and The Cochrane Manual into languages other than English.
Approval was given to allocating 50,000 GBP per annum for three years in the
first instance. Wiley has first refusal on the translation rights on the
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and translation of
this resource is likely to be dependent on Wiley finding other partners. If
Wiley choose not to pursue its option to translate the Handbook, the Collaboration
could seek to do this, but as this initiative is aimed at the less scientific
materials, it might not be a suitable translation target under this initiative.
Consideration should be given to the most appropriate items for translation.
Whilst it was noted that translation of reports of trials would be extremely
useful to authors, it was not seen as being part of this project, and should be
considered as a separate project proposal. It was noted that free internet
resources could provide sufficient translation for screening purposes. It was
agreed that the plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews are important
items to translate, and the views of Centres and the Developing Countries
Initiative should be sought on the other items that would be important to them
to have translated. Progress on translation of scientific output by Wiley has
been limited, and Nick confirmed that renegotiation of the publishing contract
is taking this into account. He would convey the background to these decisions
to Dave Booker who also had an interest in translation issues.
Action: Nick
14 Five-year
review of the Steering Group: Implementation of the review panel’s
recommendations
Lisa chaired the discussion
of item 15.
Lisa explained that
Lorne chaired the
discussion of items 16 to 24.3.
16 Proposed
expanded remit for the Executive Group
16.1 Advisory Group reporting: Instead of reporting to the full Steering Group at
its face-to-face meetings, it had been proposed that Advisory Group Convenors
should report to the Executive. Convenors would participate in the Executive
teleconference at which their report was being discussed, as would the two
Steering Group representatives on the particular Group. The Groups would only
report once a year, at the time of submitting their budget request for the
coming year.
Action: Jini
16.2 Delegated
decision-making responsibility within The Cochrane Collaboration: Nick explained the
background to his proposed table of decision-making responsibility. It was
agreed that the proposed financial limits related to specific decisions rather
than annual totals, that a report back to the Steering Group will be expected
on each expenditure of funds, and that the Treasurer should be designated along
with the CEO and Co-Chairs for inclusion in all decisions in this table. After
discussion, the financial limit for urgent decision-making by the
CEO/Co-Chairs/ Treasurer was increased to “Up to £15,000”. The table for urgent financial decisions was also adjusted to
raise the financial limit for formal Steering Group meetings to “Over £50,000”,
in line with the limit of Steering Group responsibility by correspondence,
which was set at “Up to £50,000”. The
Administrator and Bookkeeper should be involved where appropriate. In
emergencies it might not be possible to involve all those named. The rows
analysing decisions according to their non-financial ‘Impact’ were considered
to be unnecessary. Nick will remove these from the table and circulate the
updated version to the Steering Group.
Action: Nick
17 Strategic review of The Cochrane Collaboration
This item was the subject
of a separate discussion by telephone with Jeremy Grimshaw who is leading this
review. Jeremy outlined his strategy and likely work plan, which included wide
consultation within the Collaboration and a proposed timeline of a final report
to be delivered at the
18 Strategic Plan - Management Plan
This was provided as
background for the meeting, but not specifically discussed. Members were asked
to provide Nick with updated material as appropriate.
Action:
Everyone
19 Register
of reports of diagnostic test accuracy
The
Steering Group gratefully acknowledged Ruth Mitchell’s informative progress
report. Jon would write and thank her for this.
Action: Jon
20 Reports to the Steering Group:
20.1 Publishing
Policy Group (PPG): Lorne’s progress report as Convenor of the PPG was received with
appreciation. The requested budget of 5000 GBP for a face to face meeting and
teleconferences during the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved
without discussion. However, Jini was asked to check this figure against the
cost of the PPG meeting in February 2006 as it seemed somewhat low; she should
come back to the Executive if additional funds were needed.
Action: Jini
20.2 Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG): Rob reported that an
exploratory meeting for a proposed Nursing Care Field was to be held in the
near future. Some concerns had been expressed about duplication of effort in
terms of creating a specialised register, organising a group around a
particular profession, and not taking into account some concerns that had been
raised in the past. These concerns were noted. The requested MRG budget of
11,000 GBP for a face-to-face meeting and teleconferences during the financial
year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved.
20.3 Cochrane
Library Users’ Group (CLUG): Emma Irvin’s report as Convenor of the CLUG was
acknowledged with appreciation. The requested budget of 918 GBP for the
financial year April 2007 to March 2008 was approved.
20.4 Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group (CPAG): The six-monthly report provided by Steve McDonald
and Jordi Pardo was received with appreciation. Their requested budget of 7700
GBP for the financial year April 2007 to March 2008 and the request for funding
to replace the Colloquium Manager software program were approved without
discussion. The paper ‘Reducing the carbon footprint - Cochrane Colloquia’
referenced in their report was discussed separately (see item 31.2).
20.5 Feedback
Management Advisory Group (FMAG): There
was a broad discussion of the FMAG’s activities. Lisa and Peter agreed to
convey its substance to the outgoing Convenor, and to encourage the person who
has been proposed as the new Convenor to accept the role. The outgoing Convenor
was thanked for her service to the advisory group. The issue of appointing a
Co-Convenor will be addressed at a later date.
Action: Lisa, Peter
20.6 Handbook
Advisory Group (HAG): The Steering Group appreciated the report provided by
20.7 Information
Management System Group (IMSG):
20.8 Quality
Advisory Group (QAG): The report by the Co-Convenors,
20.9 The
Campbell Collaboration: Lorne thanked Peter for his status report on The
Campbell Collaboration.
21 Reports from entity representatives:
21.1 Cochrane Review Group issues: No particular issues of concern were raised
that had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.
21.2 Methods Group issues: No particular issues of concern were raised that
had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.
21.3 Field/Network issues: No particular issues of concern were raised that
had not been covered elsewhere on the agenda.
21.4 Centre issues: Lisa reported on the ‘Medical Milestones’
competition that had been run by the BMJ, which had been sponsored by
AstraZeneca, unbeknownst to Lisa and Kay Dickersin. Adrian and Lorne agreed to
write to the BMJ expressing the Steering Group’s concern.
Action: Adrian,
Lorne
22 The next three Steering Group meetings:
22.1
22.2
22.3
23
The next three Cochrane Colloquia:
23.1
Action:
23.2 Freiburg: 3-7 October 2008:
There was
nothing new to report about next year’s Colloquium in
23.3 Invitation
to host the 2009 Colloquium in Singapore (4-8 October): Nick raised the issue that
the Steering Group has no ‘say’ in setting the theme of its annual conferences,
nor in how they are organised. He proposed that there be a formal agreement
with future hosts, with agreed timelines, to be worked out with the Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group.
Action: Adrian, Nick
24 Treasurer’s report on financial and legal matters:
24.1 Current financial position: Donna drew attention to the main items of
interest in the spreadsheet and cash flow forecast. Jini reported that the
bookkeeping services of a trained accountant and bookkeeper, Graham Carson, had
been engaged on an hourly basis to make all payments and prepare the accounts
of the Collaboration and the Trading Company, commencing this month. Nick
undertook to prepare information for the Steering Group Bulletin about those items
that are to be funded as the result of decisions made at this meeting, with
input from Donna.
Action: Nick, Donna
24.2 Cash flow forecast: Lorne showed several slides demonstrating
projections about the anticipated financial impacts of the decisions made
during this meeting and of other initiatives still under discussion. Even with
relatively conservative income assumptions (e.g. that Wiley’s income will
increase at five per cent per annum) the Collaboration will have no difficulty
in funding all of the decisions made at this meeting of the Steering Group.
However, several of the initiatives under discussion (such as an
Editor-in-Chief or the suggested revisions to CENTRAL) could be quite
expensive. Donna, Lorne and Nick will prepare similar projections for future
Steering Group meetings to facilitate decision-making about the most
appropriate use of Collaboration resources.
Action: Donna, Lorne, Nick
24.3 Steering Group and Secretariat budget for 2007-2008: There were no queries about
the proposed budget for the new financial year, and it was approved. The
Steering Group agreed that they did not need to see the budget in so much
detail in future, but would leave this to the Treasurer.
24.4 Sub- and Advisory Group budget requests for 2007-08: These budget requests were
approved (see above).
25.1 Income
to entities:
Donna
gave a brief introduction to her background paper, which raised a number of
questions about how the recent increase in royalty income could best be used to
support the activities of Cochrane entities. It was noted that the royalty
income is still less than ten per cent of the collective income of all Cochrane
entities and activities. A number of options were considered.
·
A ‘commissioned’ approach, with the Steering Group working with
‘clusters’ across entities (e.g. TSCs) to generate work programmes to promote
effectiveness and efficiency.
·
Open opportunities for people within entities to address priority issues
in ways that the Steering Group had not previously thought of (i.e. similar to
the new Opportunities Fund).
·
Cross-Collaboration support such as the current Colloquium-sponsored
entity registration fees.
In
the light of this discussion, the criteria to be used for future rounds of the
Opportunities Fund will be considered, particularly whether or not
institutional overheads should be included in grant awards.
Action: Adrian, Jon, Lorne,
Nick
The
Steering Group then considered the implications of these discussions for the
Prioritisation Fund. Prioritisation of topics for Cochrane reviews had been
identified as an important aim and the Prioritisation Fund had been established
to address this. It was acknowledged that it will only be clear how well the
funded projects address the specific issues identified in the Khon Kaen
discussion (see Prioritization
report from the Khon Kaen meeting) once the Prioritisation Fund
applications have been reviewed and approval decisions made. However, based on initial
review, none of the proposals addresses the suggestion made in Khon Kaen for a
pilot of a Rapid Response Team. It was agreed that this proposal about
commissioning such a facility should come to the Executive so that a decision
can be reached quickly; it would need a firmer budget than that suggested in
Khon Kaen. Before this goes out to consultation with members of the
Collaboration, draft documents should be circulated to the whole Steering
Group.
At
the end of the session, Donna agreed to develop the ideas that had been
discussed, and to circulate a document to aid future decision-making, based on
clear underpinning principles. Liz and Peter agreed to present a document on
the proposed Rapid Response Team for an Executive teleconference in the near
future.
Action: Donna, Liz, Peter
25.2 Cochrane
Developing Countries Network – funding request: Joy and Zbys left the
meeting after providing background to the establishment of a Cochrane
Developing Countries Network (CDCN). The Steering Group expressed strong
support for this initiative. It was pleased with the kinds of things contained
within the proposal, but expressed some concerns, partly because this was an
application for infrastructure funding, and partly because the project managers
needed to engage with the Centre Directors in order to succeed. There was
agreement to consider a more focussed project in discussion with the Centre
Directors, with a revised budget for project costs only. Lisa was asked to
arrange for a revised proposal to establish a Cochrane Developing Countries
Network to be on the agenda of the Centre Directors’ meeting in
Action: Lisa, Lorne
26 Issues
raised by the Trading Company Directors
27 Commercial
sponsorship policy: three-year review
Nick reminded the Steering
Group that it was time to undertake the three-year review of the
Collaboration’s policy on commercial sponsorship, and introduced his paper on
the topic, with four recommendations for action. It was agreed that it was
necessary to gather the evidence in order to evaluate the effects of this policy.
·
Recommendation 1 - An objective
financial review, based on Monitoring and Registration Group annual monitoring
data (‘Part B’ plus contextual/subjective responses to the MRG monitoring
process):
The Secretariat would undertake this recommendation.
Action: Nick
·
Recommendation 2 - A subjective
survey of entities to gauge their experience under the new policy, three years
in:
Nick would undertake a survey to determine this.
Action: Nick
·
Recommendation 3 - A subjective
survey of significant stakeholders, including funders, related organisations,
and consumer groups:
The Steering Group agreed not to implement this recommendation.
·
Recommendation 4 - A research
project to conduct a systematic review of relevant information on the subject
of the effect of commercial sponsorship on organisations such as, or similar
to, our own:
Lisa reported that although studies of the effects of sponsorship on trials and
on systematic reviews had been published, it might be very difficult to assess
the effects of commercial sponsorship on an entire organization. Perception
remains a major factor governing this issue. It was suggested that if such a
review were done, it might take a narrower focus, e.g. assess the impact of
commercial sponsorship on a specific meeting (such as a Colloquium). It was
agreed not to undertake such a project. However, it was agreed that the data
from Lisa’s study of commercial sponsorship to entities needed to be updated.
She would provide Nick with the data on commercial sponsorship of research, and
send the slides she had presented at the Dutch Symposium to Jini to arrange to
put them onto the website.
Action: Lisa, Jini
28 Proposed
Bill Silverman Prize
Action: Adrian, Peter
Lorne chaired the
discussion of items 29 to 36.
29 Succession planning for Cochrane Review Groups
Lorne
explained that the Centre Directors and Co-ordinating Editors’ executive had
discussed
Action: Rob
30 Discretionary
Fund expenditure
This item was for information only.
31 Environmental sustainability:
31.1 Lessons
learned from webcasting the Dublin plenary sessions:
Lorne expressed appreciation to
1. It was agreed to broadcast as much as
possible of the Colloquium on the internet, and to provide details on how to
watch these broadcasts as far in advance as possible.
2. It was agreed that adding the
complexity of allowing live questions to be asked from afar during the plenary
sessions and annual general meeting would not be justified.
3. It was agreed to try to make it
possible for presenters to make their presentations through a video conference
link.
4. It was agreed to explore having a voluntary
‘online registration fee’ for Colloquia, as a way of people contributing
towards the costs of Colloquia, even if not attending in person. This would
minimise the impact of remote viewing on the registration income for a
Colloquium.
5. It was agreed that all printed
material for Colloquia should be available on the internet, and that people
should be offered the choice of whether or not to receive a printed copy of the
Programme and Abstracts book.
6. It was agreed that recycled material
should be used for Colloquia as much as possible, to minimise the impact on the
environment, and that appropriate recycling facilities should be available
during Colloquia.
7. It
should be left to individual entities to choose whether or not to conduct
carbon audits. It was noted that preparation of carbon audits could require
time, effort and attention from entities and decrease their capacity to produce
reviews. It
was pointed out that many entities participate in carbon audits performed by
their own institutions, and that performing a separate carbon audit for their
Cochrane entity alone could be quite challenging. The World Land Trust (www.carbonbalanced.org) provides a
template for calculating one’s carbon audit, should people be interested in
doing so on an individual basis.
8. There was no agreement as to whether
or not the Collaboration should report on its carbon footprint.
31.2 Reducing
the carbon footprint - Cochrane Colloquia: Lorne said that trying to
persuade people not to come to Colloquia has a negative impact on our mission.
We should acknowledge the fact that Colloquia are about a great deal more than
plenary sessions. The Steering Group thanked the Colloquium Policy Advisory
Group for their careful consideration of the issue of environmental
sustainability, but acknowledged the great benefit from people attending
Colloquia. Ruth said it was common for Trials Search Co-ordinators not to be
able to attend Colloquia for funding reasons. Webcasting is the only way that
some people can have access to the content of Colloquia, and it increases
participation from those who have difficulty in attending in person. Webcasting
should therefore be seen as increasing inclusiveness. Nick recommended
investigating the use of podcasts of the main sessions, because webcasting
cannot deal with time zone differences. Advice will soon be available from the
German Cochrane Centre with regard to webcasting. The choice of meeting times
should take into account the time zones of participants who are unable to
attend in person. We should also look beyond plenaries, and consider other
options. Payment of an ‘online registration fee’ for people not attending a
Colloquium but participating at long distance, suggested by the Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group, should be voluntary.
32 Matters arising from the minutes
of the previous Steering Group meeting in Dublin, not already dealt with
There were no
additional items to discuss, that had not been raised previously in this
meeting. Nick reported that a year ago The Campbell Collaboration had entered
into a partnership agreement with the American Institutes of Research (AIR).
Some
33 Spreadsheet of Steering Group members’ outstanding action
items
Lorne reminded everyone
to let Diana know of their completed action items, so that this spreadsheet can
act as a useful prompt for their use.
Action: Everyone
34 Allocation of funds to specific proposals
See item 24 above.
35 Any other business:
35.1 This year’s
elections to the Steering Group: It was agreed to maintain two representative
positions on the Steering Group for members of the Consumer Network. The Field representative should
continue to be elected by the usual process, excluding members of the Consumer
Network from standing or voting for this position. Jeremy Grimshaw should be
asked to look at the anomaly of the Methods Groups continuing to have only one
representative on the Steering Group, as part of the Collaboration-wide review.
Action:
Lorne
35.2 Topics for special session
at mid-year meeting in
Action: Lorne
35.3 Academic
vs practical EBHC: In her presentation to the Steering Group, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert had
drawn a distinction between academic and practical evidenced-based health care
(EBHC) products. The Collaboration’s core activities of producing Cochrane
reviews was in the academic category, but there were recent examples of
‘spin-off’ products, such as ‘Evidence-Based Child Health’ that were in the
second category. Deborah had raised the question of whether the Collaboration
wished to remain focused on academic EBHC or whether it wished to diversify
further into practical EBHC. Members of the Steering Group thought that the
advantages and disadvantages of the various options should be explored. Nick
would ask Deborah to work with Liz in identifying what practical EBHC products are on the market, what we are currently
doing in this area, what are the opportunities, and what the financial and
other costs would be. This might be a suitable topic
for discussion at the special session during the mid-year meeting in
Action: Nick, Liz
35.4 Steering Group input into scientific content of Colloquia: It was agreed that the
person who would be undertaking the project overview should look at those
projects that are coming to fruition, such as the Collaboration-wide review.
Jini should make ‘Progress on projects’ a standing item on future Steering
Group meeting agendas. Nick agreed to communicate with future Colloquium hosts
on the process for organising the Steering Group’s input to the content of the
scientific programme for their Colloquium. He would also advise the Colloquium
Policy Advisory Group of the need to do this for all future Colloquia (see item
23.2).
Action: Jini, Nick
35.5
Communication to entities about the Steering Group review: It was
agreed that the Co-Chairs would make a presentation about this at the Annual
General Meeting in
Action: Adrian, Lorne
36 Thanks to the hosts and organisers of the meeting
Lorne
thanked Rob, Hanni Spitteler and all at the Dutch Cochrane Centre for hosting
such a successful and enjoyable meeting. He also thanked the Secretariat staff
for preparing the background materials for the meeting, and Jini for taking the
minutes.
* * * * *
NOTE: CONFIDENTIAL ADDENDA
At times it is difficult to document Steering Group decisions without
impinging on individual confidentiality, breaking commercial confidence, or
revealing other sensitive material. In such cases, a confidential addendum to
the minutes is prepared.
APPENDIX 1
Half-day discussion concerning the formation
of an editorial board – 20 April 2007
This discussion was focused
on the following four questions:
1. Do you
approve in principle the further development and establishment of an ‘editorial
board’ made up of all Co-ordinating Editors and an executive group with
responsibilities delegated from the board? What are the opportunities and
challenges?
2. Do you agree with the suggestions in Appendix C concerning:
a.
the draft aim of the board
b.
the draft role and responsibilities of the board
c.
the draft terms of reference for the board executive
Do you have suggestions for improving them?
3. What are some of the important priorities for the board to
address?
4. What
sorts of barriers will need to be overcome for the editorial board to be able
to meet these priorities? Are there aspects of the current structures,
processes, and initiatives of the Collaboration that might need to be
addressed?
Each question was addressed
in turn in each of three small groups, and then by the group as a whole
following a report from each of the three small groups. The following issues
were raised.
There was consensus in all of
the groups that this was a good idea and should proceed. There were questions about whether “editorial
board” was the best name for the group, given that many of the proposed
functions and roles were quite different from those of a traditional editorial
board. This issue was not discussed in
detail and will be the subject of further discussion at a later time.
·
Increased
communication among co-ordinating editors
·
Increased focus on
quality of reviews
·
Would complement other
quality improvement initiatives such as those of QAG
·
Reduced duplication of
effort
·
Increased
standardization across groups
·
Would facilitate collaboration
between groups
·
Increase discussion and
planning for key issues including:
o
Training
o
Succession planning
·
Current diversity
of procedures between CRGs
·
Defining quality
standards
·
Prioritization of
quality issues
·
Getting commitment and
endorsement from all Co-ordinating Editors
·
Ensuring that the
executive group has the authority to enforce its decisions across CRGs
·
Will Co-ordinating
Editors find adequate time to participate?
·
How will collaboration
with important other groups/individuals (such as RGCs) be obtained?
·
What resources are
needed or available?
There was general agreement
with these issues as outlined in the background paper. However, a number of important items had not
been fully addressed in the paper, and would need to be developed further. These include:
·
The composition,
terms of reference, responsibilities and reporting relationships of the executive
group
·
The relationships
between the board and executive group and other existing Collaboration groups
such as the steering group, QAG, HAG, methods groups, etc.
·
Effective ways to
include input from non-co-eds (consumers,
methodologist, authors, etc) in the group’s decision making.
These
are listed in random order (i.e. there is no implication that the items higher
on the list are more important than those lower down):
·
Establishing a
method for ongoing sampling of reviews to assess their quality
·
Developing a
version of the handbook for editors
·
Developing
training processes and opportunities
·
Setting quality
standards
·
Updating of
reviews
·
Setting up a
process to identify the main quality problems needing attention
·
Implementation of
RevMan5
·
Implementation of
central copy editing
·
Linkages with
Wiley
·
Developing
methods to keep Co-Eds, editors and others up to date with quality standards.
·
Forming a new
group will make the already complicated structure of the Collaboration even
more complex.
·
The Cochrane
tradition of individual group autonomy will be challenged by the expectation of
joint quality improvement activities across all groups.
·
Potential for the
perception by some CRGs that quality solutions are being imposed upon them.
·
Need for adequate
resources, including funding for face-to-face meetings.
Appendix 2
Five-year
review of the Steering Group:
Implementation
of the review panel’s recommendations
Adrian
Grant thanked
Recommendation 1: The Steering
Group should consider reorganising its activities in such a way that a more
clear separation of ‘micro-management’ from ‘policy setting and strategic
planning activities’ occurs. A clarification of the responsibilities and duties
of the Chief Executive Officer and the Secretariat is an essential component of
this effort.
The
Steering Group had already taken the following steps that addressed this
recommendation:
·
Half-day sessions had been set aside at Steering Group mid-year meetings
for discussion of major strategic issues, in conjunction with Centre Directors
and Co-ordinating Editors. In the 2007 mid-year meeting a further half-day had
been committed to a second strategic discussion limited to Steering Group
members. It was agreed that this model should continue in future mid-year
meetings. Other groups of people than Centre Directors will be invited to
attend joint strategic sessions in future, dependent on the agenda. Topics for
discussion at these sessions will be set in the context of the Strategic Plan,
and will not necessarily be decided upon by members of the Steering Group.
·
The Steering Group agenda has become more strategically focussed: it is
now structured around the strategic plan with separation into items for
discussion or decision and items just requiring Steering Group consent.
·
The CEO has taken on more of the micro-management of the organisation,
particularly those consequent on decisions taken by the Steering Group.
The
following further responses were agreed:
·
Biannual reports from advisory groups are being moved off the Steering
Group agenda, and will be dealt with by the Executive through a single annual
report from each group (see item 16.1).
·
Entity representatives will canvass their constituents for items for
discussion further in advance of Steering Group meetings.
·
Entity representatives are already expected to report relevant Steering
Group decisions to their groups; in future, this communication will be
facilitated by ‘open access’ background documents for Steering Group meetings
being available in Archie.
·
Items for Steering Group meeting agendas will be looked at in advance to
see what groups need to be consulted before meetings.
·
More background information will be made available on the Collaboration
website, possibly using the ethics guidelines of other organisations such as
Wiley as a model.
·
Ways will be considered to enhance the accessibility of information that
is already available about the Secretariat; one option is the new Steering
Group Bulletins.
·
Jini was asked to investigate making the Steering Group minutes on the
website password protected to members of the Collaboration.
Action: Everyone; Jini
Recommendation 2: The Steering Group
should consider the pros and cons of setting up mechanisms for auditing how
main policy decisions are received by entities, whether they are fully
understood, as well as the opportunity to assess adherence to them
periodically.
·
The current process for monitoring entities does not adequately identify
all the matters of most importance to the Steering Group in assessing the
health of the organisation, and should be reviewed. The extent to which
information about individual entities as opposed to groups of entities would be
available should be considered as part of this process.
·
There should be clearer communication of decisions that have an impact
on entities. Steering Group Bulletins will go some way towards achieving this,
but other ways to do this should be sought.
·
The extent to which policy decisions are implemented should be monitored
more closely. Appropriate indicators should be identified at the time when
decisions are taken.
Action: Rob, Adrian, Lorne, Nick
Recommendation 3: A more proactive
responsibility should be played by the Steering Group in ensuring the quality
of reviews by setting up specific organisational arrangements such as working
more closely with Co-ordinating Editors, implementing mechanisms to audit
methodological and content quality of sample(s) of reviews periodically in The
Cochrane Library, appointing a Cochrane Library Editor-in-Chief and/or an
editorial board.
·
Steering Group discussions should, as a routine, include assessment of
the quality of our product.
·
Active steps have been taken to work more closely with Co-ordinating
Editors: through the joint strategy meeting at mid-year Steering Group
meetings; and through provision of financial support to the Co-ordinating
Editors’ executive to attend these meetings and to produce a background paper
for discussion at them.
·
The 2007 joint strategy meeting had considered a proposal from the
Co-ordinating Editors’ executive for the establishment of a Co-ordinating
Editors’ board, and the Steering Group had subsequently agreed to this in
principle.
·
A background paper for the joint strategy meeting had been provided by
the Quality Advisory Group. It was recognised that the Quality Advisory Group
would have a key role in any new initiative to improve quality.
·
Initiatives to improve quality will require resources, particularly for
groups such as the Methods Groups that do not receive funding from elsewhere.
·
Lisa will draft a proposal for conducting an assessment of the quality of Cochrane reviews from a
variety of perspectives (i.e. methodological, consumer, copy editing, etc.) for
consideration by the Executive, with assistance from Janet, Jon, Jonathan and
Liz, looking across CRGs. Lisa will ask
Action: Lisa, Janet, Jon, Jonathan, Liz
Recommendation 4: Explicit
mechanisms to promote prioritisation of reviews are in urgent need. As the
issue of prioritisation emerged as a critical issue in this review, the
Steering Group should take decisions aimed at putting the experimentation(s)
suggested by the ‘brainstorming session’ held at the last Steering Group
meeting in Khon Kaen (Thailand) in place, paying special attention to the pros
and cons of implementing the different options.
·
Prioritisation has been given urgent consideration by the Steering
Group. This was the topic of the joint strategic session at the 2006 mid-year
meeting, and this led to a call for proposals to address the Collaboration’s
needs identified at the meeting. Applications are currently under review and
funding decisions will be made within the next two months. Successful
applicants will be asked to describe the advantages and disadvantages of the
approaches to prioritisation in their final reports. Prioritisation projects
that are funded will be described on the website.
·
The extent to which the projects funded through the prioritisation
scheme meet the needs identified at the 2006 joint strategic session will be
actively assessed with a view to commissioning any necessary further work.
·
Once the funded projects are nearing completion, a follow-up meeting,
including people external to the Steering Group will be held to discuss the
implications for the Collaboration and how any changes would be implemented.
·
The Steering Group will review the information that entities give to the
Monitoring and Registration Group describing how they prioritise reviews. Action: Lorne, Nick
Recommendation 5: A specific
strategic action stream securing the funding needed for long-term
sustainability should be developed in collaboration with the different entities
(Review Groups, Centres, other entities). This action should be seen as linked
to the issues addressed in Recommendation 9. Entities’ representatives on the
Steering Group should play an active co-ordination role toward their
constituencies and favour the development of actions that the Steering Group
should try to implement at Collaboration level.
·
Income from sales of The Cochrane
Library represent less than ten per cent of the Collaboration’s current
total income stream. Funding from this source is therefore not a viable
alternative to the current arrangement whereby each entity takes responsibility
for securing its own funding.
·
Finding funds often requires considerable effort from entities and these
activities can take people away from their core function of producing reviews.
·
With a view to helping entities and the Collaboration generally, Nick
will seek a professional consultant to undertake a scoping exercise to advise
the Steering Group on ways of raising funds. A figure of 15000 GBP was approved
for this exercise. The terms of reference should be for across-entity funding
and for nationally funded entities. This exercise will involve contacting
members of the Collaboration to find out what works for them, and talking to
people outside the Collaboration such as stakeholders, to produce a series of
recommendations.
·
It was agreed to employ one or more fundraising specialists, and
defining the exact role and scope of the post(s) will be deferred until the
wider scoping exercise referred to above has been completed.
·
The best use of funds that are now being generated through sales of The Cochrane Library is being considered
as a separate agenda item on the Steering Group’s agenda; these deliberations
will also feed into the Steering Group’s formal response to the review.
·
Nick will seek clarification from Alessandro Liberati of the second
sentence of this recommendation.
Action: Nick
Recommendation 6: The Steering
Group should take seriously the challenge of improving the effectiveness of its
internal communication mechanisms with entities. Respondents have suggested
specific solutions that should be discussed by the Steering Group for possible
implementation. Internal language barriers (true and potential) should be
seriously considered in an international organisation such as The Cochrane
Collaboration, and all ranges of possible remedial actions carefully
considered.
·
It was recognised that communicating only the important information will
help to improve communication, while acknowledging that different topics are
important to different people/groups.
·
The editor of CCInfo and Cochrane News will be undertaking a survey
shortly to identify people’s communication needs and preferred methods.
·
Using a single channel of communication within an entity has not proved
adequate.
·
One perceived barrier is over-use of email through distribution lists;
putting more information into Archie should help to reduce this.
·
Rob will ask the Monitoring and Registration Group to include a question
on the monitoring form about the entity’s communication strategy.
·
Nick will ask Dave Booker to investigate having a page on cochrane.org
pointing people to where they can obtain the information they are looking for,
paying attention to ‘internal language barriers’ such as the large amount of
jargon and acronyms used within the Collaboration, as well as the different
first languages of members of the organisation.
·
Steering Group Bulletins will provide more user-friendly access to this
group’s discussions. Entity representatives are also responsible for feeding
back in a constructive way without overloading people.
·
Lorne will develop a brief document describing how these suggestions
will be taken forward.
Action: Rob, Nick, Lorne
Recommendation 7: The
representation of entities on the Steering Group may be reconsidered, though no
clear cut suggestions emerge from this review. Issues that may deserve
discussion are the current mechanisms of having two Co-Chairs, the
personal/professional characteristics that Co-Chairs should have, the
possibility to recruit as Steering Group members 1-2 persons external to the
Collaboration (with a view to advancing strategic relationships with other
international organisations).
·
Evidence from the review did not indicate that reconsideration of
representation of entities on the Steering Group should be a priority, although
this will be reassessed after the forthcoming review of The Cochrane
Collaboration.
·
The workload of the chairing function of the Steering Group is
substantial, even with two Co-Chairs. Adrian, Lorne and Nick will develop ways
of refining the current process of working, to relieve the workload on the
Co-Chairs. This will include: consideration of expanding the role and staff of
the Secretariat; and of having a three-year cycle for Co-Chairs’ terms of
office: Co-Chair-elect; active Co-Chair; and Co-Chair with an ‘ambassadorial’
function (relevant also to recommendation 9). Nick will investigate the
processes used by societies which have a Chair Elect. Nick will also ask the
person who will undertake the scoping exercise to look at the issue of buying
in those skills not present in the current membership of the Steering Group,
and of establishing an advisory board with no management function. In the
future, non-Steering Group members of the Collaboration will be eligible to
stand for the position of Co-Chair. However, formal election will be limited to
candidates with the necessary background and experience, as judged by a
committee made up of present and past members of the Steering Group.
·
Lorne will ask Jeremy Grimshaw to consider some of these issues as part
of the Collaboration-wide review he is about to lead. Specific issues include:
renaming some entities to reflect stakeholder issues; and clearly identifying
the tasks that volunteers should be doing, and those that people should be paid
to do.
·
Adrian, Lorne and Nick will work on how best to implement the changes suggested
at this meeting, providing a paper for the next Steering Group meeting in
Action: Adrian, Lorne, Nick
Recommendation 8: The Steering
Group should review carefully whether the Secretariat includes all the skills
that are needed to assist the Steering Group in the executive function.
Strengthening and diversifying the Secretariat would seem appropriate in order
to free Steering Group time and to improve several issues that have emerged as
critical in this review (i.e. internal communication). Skills that may have
priority include packaging and dissemination of information (i.e. journalism),
and ability to foster and motivate entities’ involvement in various activities
of the Collaboration.
·
Nick explained that the Secretariat is working at full capacity. He
identified a ‘project oversight co-ordinator’ as his top priority for
strengthening the Secretariat, with core responsibility for maintaining
oversight of all projects under way within the Collaboration, and ensuring effective
communication about these between entities. The post was agreed to, and Nick will draft a job description for
this.
·
The possible post of Editor-in-Chief was seen as a particularly
promising way to assist the Steering Group in its executive functions and to
improve communication across entities.
·
The question of whether the Collaboration should take greater
responsibility for the content and conduct of its Colloquia was also discussed;
Nick will consult with the Centre Directors and Colloquium Policy Advisory
Group about this and report back to the Steering Group.
Action: Nick
Recommendation 9: The Steering
Group should be more proactive in establishing collaborative relationship(s)
with external organisations. This ‘ambassador-type’ role should be played by
the Co-Chair(s) or by a person specifically appointed by the Steering Group and
identified for her/his specific skills in the area. If identified from outside
the Steering Group, such a person should report periodically to the Steering
Group and be monitored on her/his performance.
·
A range of post holders (such as Steering Group members, Centre
Directors and Co-ordinating Editors) within the Collaboration have
‘ambassadorial’ responsibilities, reflecting the Collaboration’s devolved and
international structures.
·
Changes proposed in response to recommendation 7, such as a three-year
cycle of Co-Chairs, and election of Co-Chairs no longer limited to members of
the Steering Group, are partly prompted by this recommendation, aiming to allow
the Co-Chairs time to be more proactive in linking with other groups initiated
by members of the Collaboration equipped to do this.
·
Linking with external organisations could also be a part of the remit of
a new post of Editor-in-Chief (see response to recommendation 3).
·
This recommendation is also being addressed by ongoing consideration of
who our stakeholders are.
Recommendation 10: Given all the
considerations above, no change to the current frequency of Steering Group reviews
can be recommended. The issue should be reconsidered in consideration of the
changes to the Steering Group’s structure and duties that may be decided after
this review.
·
The next review of the Steering Group should take place in 2010. Nick
will add this to the Strategic Plan and Management Plan.
Action: Nick
Recommendation 11: The Steering Group should set criteria or key
performance indicators for judging its performance and that of the
Collaboration as a whole to aid monitoring of progresses as well as future
reviews similar to this one.
·
This is addressed in the response to Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 12: The Steering
Group should make a strong effort in its strategic planning to link it
transparently to the Collaboration’s priorities and budgetary plans, and to
identify explicit outcomes against which the implementation of its policies can
be evaluated.
·
Moves have already been made to link the Steering Group’s activities to
the Strategic Plan, and Steering Group Bulletins will emphasise this link.
·
Principles for budgetary planning are being developed to ensure that
Collaboration funds are used to best advantage.
·
The question of monitoring implementation was discussed under
Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 13: Formal and
explicit mechanisms for prioritisation and decision-making processes about the
use and allocation of resources should be set up, allowing the Collaboration’s
members opportunities to comment on and give input to the Steering Group’s
proposals.
·
Discussion of this recommendation was deferred to items 16.2 and 25.1 of
the Steering Group agenda.
Recommendation 14: The need for a
Collaboration-wide review emerged both from the analysis of the questionnaires
and from the interviews. If such a review is undertaken, the Review Panel warns
that it would entail considerable costs and should be carefully thought through
in terms of its expected benefits and the acceptability/feasibility of the
changes that may emerge as to the structure of the organisation.
·
Jeremy Grimshaw of the Canadian Cochrane Centre is leading this review.
Action:
Recommendation 15: If a
Collaboration-wide review is to be implemented, the Review Panel recommends
several specific points should be part of it [see background document].
These points have been addressed in response to other recommendations, above.
Recommendation 16: The Review
Panel recommends that the discussion and actions taken as a consequence of this
review be timely and transparent. To this end it recommends that the Steering
Group finalises an implementation plan within the next few months.
·
Nick will draft a document itemising the Steering Group’s response to
the recommendations and seek comments on it from the Steering Group and members
of the Review Panel. Once an updated version of this has been agreed by the
Steering Group, it will be widely circulated within the Collaboration, and
formally presented at the Annual General Meeting during the São Paulo
Colloquium (see item 34.5 below).
·
Action: Nick,
APPENDIX 3
Declarations of interest
The Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group (CCSG) is the governing body of The
Cochrane Collaboration, and the board of directors of the registered charity.
Its members are elected by the overall membership of The Cochrane Collaboration
for three years, with annual rotation of a proportion of its members. A
conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest (e.g. personal financial
gain) can influence, or have the appearance of influencing, judgments regarding
the primary interest (e.g. service on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group). Steering Group members are asked to disclose all relationships
with commercial organisations that could pose a conflict of interest that would
reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest. The term 'related
organisation' in the questions below means any organisation related to health
care or medical research. These declarations of interest are updated quarterly.
Godwin
Aja, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering
Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Author, Effective
Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group; Member, Cochrane Consumers and
Communication Review Group; Member, Health Promotion and Public Health
Field:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received
research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or
fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had
paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3. Received
honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4. Served
as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation?
I serve as associate professor, health promotion and education, at
5. Possessed
share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
(excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no
control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received
personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received
royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Lorne Becker, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group, Member, Executive Group; Convenor, Publishing Policy
Group; Co-ordinator, Primary Health Care Field; Author and Peer Referee,
Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Review Group; Author, Cochrane Tobacco
Addiction Review Group; Member, Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group, and
Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received
research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or
fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had
paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3. Received
honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
Yes: Honorarium from Thompson Micromedex for serving on the editorial
board of their DiseaseDex publication. This relationship ended on 1 July 2006.
4. Served
as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed
share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
(excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no
control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received
personal gifts from a related organisation?
Yes: Small gifts from the Welch Allyn Corporation and the Dutch Dairy
Council.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received
royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do you
have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that
would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Lisa Bero, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group
representative, Feedback Management Advisory Group; Funding Arbiter;
Member, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received
research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or
fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: In the past five years, I have received research funding from the
National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, California Tobacco-Related
Disease Research Program (research money derived from the tax on
cigarettes), and Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute, National
Science Foundation.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or
kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: I have received consulting fees from the
3. Received
honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
Yes: I have accepted honoraria from the Association of Medical
Writers and Dartmouth University for talks on reporting of scientific research
in the lay press, the World Health Organization and Pomona University (European
Union Center) for talks on public commentary on the Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control, Kaiser Permanente for talks on (a) evaluating the quality of
research and (b) tobacco industry manipulation of research, the World
Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics for a talk on managing
financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials, and the Brooklyn Law School
for a talk and paper on systematic reviews.
4. Served
as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No. Since 1991, I have been a
full-time faculty employee of the
5. Possessed
share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
(excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no
control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received
personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received
royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: I receive about $50 US per year in royalty fees from the
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Jonathan Craig, Cochrane Review Group representative
(of Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member,
Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy
Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor Liaison with Monitoring and Registration
Group; Co-ordinating Editor and Author, Cochrane Renal Group; Author, Cochrane
Anaesthesia, Incontinence, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Ear Nose and Throat, and
Gynaecological Cancer Review Groups; Member, Screening and Diagnostic
Tests Methods Group and Child Health Field:
A. Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research,
or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Jon Deeks, Methods Group Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Co-Convenor,
Statistical Methods Group, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews Working
Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Member, Quality
Advisory Group, RevMan Advisory Group, Screening and Diagnostic Tests
Methods Group, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group, Reporting Bias
Methods Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: I received funding from 2001 to 2003 to employ a research fellow from
Pfizer Ltd. My salary is part funded by a
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation?
Yes: I received payment from the BMJ for reviewing and attending committees
since 2000. I was paid consultancy fees by Pfizer Ltd for statistical
advice in 2001 and 2002.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
Yes: I received an honorarium from NICE for lecturing in 2004,
from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position
of management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: my unit has received royalty payments from the BMJ for reprint sales.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Zbigniew Fedorowicz, Representative of members of
Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director,
Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration
Group; Member, Information Management System Group; Member, Health Related
Quality of Life Methods Group; Member and Peer Referee, Cochrane Oral Health
Review Group; Member, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Review Group; and Member, Health
Promotion and Public Health Field:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received
research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or
fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had
paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3. Received
honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4. Served
as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed
share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
(excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no
control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received
personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received
royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Ruth
Foxlee, Trials Search Co-ordinator Representative,
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group;
Steering Group representative, Information Management System Group; Member,
RevMan Advisory Group; Trials Search Co-ordinator, Cochrane Wounds Group;
Author, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research,
or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research: No.
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that
would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Donna
Gillies, Author Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Treasurer; Member, Executive Group; Steering
Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Acute
Respiratory Infections, Anaesthesia, Heart,
Musculoskeletal, Neonatal, Schizophrenia, and Wounds Review
Groups; Peer Reviewer, Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and
Neurosis, and Anaesthesia Review Groups:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct
research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or
kind) for a related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
I have received honoraria as a reviewer for the Journal of Advanced Nursing.
4. Served
as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Adrian Grant, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group; Convenor, Executive Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane
Incontinence Review Group; Author, Cochrane Pregnancy and
Childbirth, Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases, and Renal
Review Groups; Consumer Reviewer, Cochrane Neuromuscular Diseases Review Group:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes:
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind)
for a related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
Yes: a single payment from Ethicon Endosurgery for attendance at
a meeting to discuss possible research collaboration not pursued.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of
interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
[Sally Green did not attend this
meeting.]
Joy Oliver, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative,
Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Member, South African Cochrane
Centre; Assistant Review Group Co-ordinator, HIV/AIDS Group:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research,
or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had
paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do you
have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that
would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Rob Scholten, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration
Steering Group; Co-Convenor, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group
representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Member, Statistical
Methods Group, and Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author,
Cochrane Back, Dementia and Cognitive Improvement, Depression Anxiety and Neurosis,
Heart, and Neuromuscular Disease Review Groups:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1. Received
research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or
fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had
paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a
related organisation?
Yes: I received an unrestricted amount
of 5000 euro from Organon Biosciences as a contribution to a symposium.
4. Served
as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed
share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
(excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no
control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received
personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Peter Tugwell, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of
Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member,
Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Feedback Management
Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review
Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I receive a stipend from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology for my
editorship of the Journal. I also receive honoraria from the Canadian
Medical Association Journal.
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation?
Yes: from Abbott, Almirall, American College of Rheumatology, Astra Zeneca,
Aventis, Berlex, Biomatrix, Bristol Myers Squibb, British Medical Journal,
Cadeuceus Group, Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment,
Canadian Medical Association Journal, Eli Lilly, Foundation for Better Health
Care, Glaxo-Welcome, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Innovus, Johnson &
Johnson, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Lilly Research, Medicine Group,
Medicus, Merck, Merck Frosst, Milbank Memorial Fund, Novartis, Ortho McNeil,
Pennside, Roche, Sandoz, Scios, Searle, Wyeth Ayerst, University of Minnesota,
University of British Columbia, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New
Jersey, University of Southampton, UpToDate, VU University Medical Center
in Amsterdam.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
See #1 above.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
I receive royalties for the book 'Evidence Based
Rheumatology' from BMJ Books (Blackwell Publishing) as well as royalties
from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins for the textbook 'Clinical
Epidemiology'. I also receive editorial royalties from UpToDate.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of
interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary
interest? No.
Janet
Wale, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group
representative, Quality Advisory Group; freelance editor and consumer representative
on Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australian health committees; consumer
for the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Musculoskeletal, Musculoskeletal Injuries,
and Heart Review Groups:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct
research? No.
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind)
for a related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Elizabeth Waters, Field Representative, Cochrane
Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group
representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Director, Health
Promotion and Public Health Field; Member, Child Health Field Advisory
Board; Member, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Heart,
Pregnancy and Childbirth, Airways, and Effective Practice and Organisation of
Care Review Groups:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research,
or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I have received funds from the NHMRC, Victorian Government Department
of Human Services, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, and philanthropic
trusts. Colgate provided toothbrushes free of charge to a randomised
controlled trial on which I was CI, and we distributed
these as part of a multifaceted intervention program.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for
a related organisation?
Yes, from the World Health Organization, the Victorian Cancer Council, and
the Australian Research
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation?
I received a one-off payment for two book chapters in 'Evidence-based
Paediatrics and Child Health'.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a
position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed
share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
(excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no
control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received
personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had
an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Narelle
Willis, Cochrane Review Group Representative
(of Review Group Co-ordinators), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group;
Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative,
Quality Advisory Group; Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Renal Review
Group; Member, Hepato-Biliary Review Group, External Referee, Hepato-Biliary
Review Group; Member, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author,
Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Working Party for Cochrane Review Groups
Procedures Collection; Member, Abstract Committee for the XIV Colloquium:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I am funded by a Department of Health and Ageing (Australian Government)
grant.
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No: I am an employee of The
Children’s Hospital at Westmead and Associated Academic Staff with the
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Hans
van der Wouden, Representative
of members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group; Steering Group representative, CENTRAL Vision Group; Member,
Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Airways Group, Ear, Nose and
Throat Group, Skin Group; Member, Child Health Field:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: as an employee of Erasmus MC -
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a
related organisation?
Yes, as a reviewer of papers for the BMJ I received several
vouchers from the BMJ Publishing Group, and a fee from The Lancet.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes, as an employee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam,
I received 1623 euros from the BMJ Publishing Group for royalty fees for the
sale of reprints of a paper we published in the BMJ.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
Monica Kjeldstrøm, Director, Information
Management System, Nordic Cochrane Centre:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? If
yes, list. No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for
an organisation? If yes, list. No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? If yes, list. No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position
of management with a related organisation? If yes, list.
I’m employed by Rigshospitalet,
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)?
I have been given, and continue to hold, shares in a small Danish
biotechnology company. I’m not able to trade in these and do not receive any
income from them. I will not influence the conduct of any review in which this
company might have a financial interest.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that
could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to
the primary interest? No.
Declarations
of interest of Secretariat staff
Jini
Hetherington, Administrator and Company
Secretary, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat:
A.
Financial interests
In
the last five years, have you:
1.
Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned
research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct
research? No.
2.
Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind)
for a related organisation? No.
3.
Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
organisation? No.
4.
Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
management with a related organisation? No.
5.
Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related
organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the
individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6.
Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7.
Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8.
Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B.
Non-financial interests
Do
you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest
that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.
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.