Minutes of meetings of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group

Melbourne, Australia

21 and 24 October 2005

[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 28 November 2005.]

Topic	Item no.
Advisory Group, Cochrane CENTRAL	21.3; 22.4
[Advisory] Group, Cochrane Library Users’	21.4
Advisory Group, Colloquium Policy	21.5
Advisory Group, Feedback Management	21.6
Advisory Group, Handbook	21.7
[Advisory] Group, Information Management System	8.2; 21.8
Advisory Group, Quality	21.9
Amsterdam mid-year meetings of Centre Directors and Steering Group	25.3
Annual General Meetings, conduct and format	10
Campbell Collaboration, liaison	21.16
CENTRAL	21.3; 22.4
Centre Directors’ mid-year meetings in 2006, 2007 and 2008	22.4; 25; 26
Centre representation on the Steering Group	15.3
Centres, report from entity representatives	22.4
Chairs of the Steering Group, report from Co-	3.4; 4
Chairs, overlap of; nominations for new Co-	3.3.2
Chief Executive Officer contract renewal	5
Chief Executive Officer, report from the	7
Cochrane Foundation operating rules	6.5
Cochrane Library, continuation of the CD-ROM	22.4
Cochrane Library, national provisions of	11.2
Cochrane Library, quality, accessibility, derivative products	11.1
Cochrane Review Groups, report from entity representatives	22.1
Cochrane Review Groups, support for RGCs and TSCs	8.3
Cochrane Review, cost of a	12
Cochrane Reviews of diagnostic test accuracy	20
Cochrane Reviews, commissioned	3.4
Cochrane Reviews, methods for updating	21.13
Cochrane Reviews, plagiarism in	3.3.1
Cochrane Reviews, plain language summaries of	22.5.1
Cochrane Reviews, prioritisation of key topics for	14
Colloquium Manager software	27
Colloquia (Dublin, 2006; São Paulo, 2007; Germany, 2008)	28
Consumer Network, report from entity representatives	22.5
Consumers, access to The Cochrane Library for contributing Cochrane	22.5.2
Contact information working group, proposal for a	3.13.13
Co-ordinating Editors	17; 22.1.3
Cost of a Cochrane review	12
CRG editorial teams, guiding principles for	15.1.1
Declarations of interest by Steering Group members and staff	2; Appendix
Developing countries initiative	13
Discretionary Fund expenditure	6.4
Dublin Colloquium in 2006	25.2; 28
Elections, nominations for Co-Chair of the Steering Group	3.3.2
Elections, Steering Group	15;22.1.2;22.1.3
Entity representatives, verbal reports from	22
Fields/Networks, report from entity representatives	22.3
Finance, cash flow forecast	6.2
Finance, current financial position	6.2
Financial reporting of charity accounts	6.3
Financial Statements, Report and	6.1
Funders’ Forum, disbandment of	4; 21.15
Funding Arbiter	21.14
Germany, Colloquium in 2008	28
Impact factors	11.2
IMS Support Team	8.3
Information Management System developments	8.1
Information Management System Group report	8.2; 21.8
Information Management System, copyright of	3.9.6
James Lind Alliance	19
Job description, Publication Arbiter	21.11
Kenneth Warren Prize 2005	10.2
Khon Kaen mid-year meetings of Centre Directors and Steering Group	25.1
Methodological quality improvement projects	22.2.1
Methods Group, Adverse Events	22.2.4
Methods Group, Qualitative	22.2.3
Methods Groups, funding for	22.2.2
Methods Groups, report from entity representative	22.2
Mid-year meetings of Centre Directors and Steering Group	22.4; 25; 26
Monitoring and Registration Group, report from the	21.2
Monitoring/review of the Steering Group	16; 22.4
National provisions of The Cochrane Library	11.2
Ombudsman	21.10
Plagiarism in Cochrane Reviews	3.3.1
Plain language summaries of Cochrane Reviews	22.5.1
Priority setting for the next four years	3.8.1
Publication Arbiter issues	3.13.10
Publication Arbiter job description	21.11
Publishing Policy Group membership	21.1
Review Group Co-ordinators	22.1.1
Review/monitoring of the Steering Group	16; 22.4
São Paulo Colloquium in 2007	28
Science Citation Index	11.2
Skype software	15.1
Steering Group elections	15
Steering Group membership of sub- and advisory groups	17
Steering Group mid-year meetings in 2006, 2007 and 2008	22.4; 25; 26
Steering Group, comments from outgoing members	18
Steering Group, monitoring/review of the	16; 22.4
Steering Group, nominations for Co-Chair of the	3.3.2
Strategic global health leadership opportunities	14; 19; 22.4
Trading Company Directors, issues raised by the	24
Treasurer’s report on financial and legal matters	6
Trials’ Search Co-ordinators’ concerns re Steering Group representation	15.2; 22.1.2
Tsunami Working Party, report from the	21.12
Umbrella reviews, report from working group on	23
Updating reviews, report from working group on	21.13
Vellore, India, mid-year meetings of Centre Directors and Steering Group	26
Website development project	9
Wiley, John and Sons Ltd	4;11;21.7;21.13;22.4

Minutes of meetings of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group

Melbourne, Australia

21 and 24 October 2005

[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 28 November 2005.]

Present (Steering Group members shown in bold typeface): Godwin Aja (for items 10 to 30), Claire Allen, Lorne Becker, Lisa Bero, Mark Davies (Chair for items 10 to 18), Jon Deeks, Deborah Dixon (John Wiley & Sons, for item 11 only), Zbys Fedorowicz, Davina Ghersi (for items 1 to 18 only), Donna Gillies, Adrian Grant, Sally Green (not present for discussion of items 21.14 to 21.16, or 22 to 24), Jini Hetherington (minutes), Monica Kjeldstrøm (Director, Information Management System, and representative of the Trading Company Directors, not present for discussion of items 19-20; 21.11; 21.13; 21.14-16: 22.1-22.3; 22.5; 25-30), Steff Lewis (Chair for items 19 to 30), Alessandro Liberati (for items 15 and 16 only), Pisake Lumbiganon (for item 24.1 only), Dorothy de Moya (The Campbell Collaboration), Jim Neilson (Chair for items 1 to 9, and then present only for items 10 to 18), Jordi Pardo, Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (John Wiley & Sons, for item 11 only), Nick Royle, Rob Scholten, Peter Tugwell, Herbert Turner (The Campbell Collaboration), Janet Wale, Liz Waters, Narelle Willis, Hans van der Wouden and Diana Wyatt (except for items 11 to 18).

1. Welcomes, apologies for absence, introductions, and approval of the agenda

Jim welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially the four incoming members (Donna Gillies, Adrian Grant, Narelle Willis and Hans van der Wouden), and Diana Wyatt (Secretary/Administrative Assistant in the Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat). He also welcomed Dorothy de Moya and Herbert Turner who were attending the meeting on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration. Godwin Aja had sent his apologies for being unable to attend the meeting for items 1 to 9. Everyone introduced themselves. Jim explained for the benefit of incoming Steering Group members that the mid-year meeting is the better opportunity to discuss items in depth than the shorter meeting during the Colloquium. New members officially join the Steering Group at the Annual General Meetings (AGMs), but Jim encouraged them to participate actively in the Steering Group meeting before the AGM as well. He explained that he, Mark and Steff would take it in turns to chair the two Steering Group meetings. The order of several agenda items was rearranged, although the order of the minutes follows the order shown on the agenda. Items 21.3, 21.8 and 22.4 were dealt with at the first Steering Group meeting on 21 October; items 15 and 16 were dealt with at the second Steering Group meeting on 24 October.

2. Steering Group members’ declarations of interest

No-one had anything to add to their existing declarations of interest, which are appended to these minutes. Lisa had provided the template for these statements and there had been some confusion about sources of funding from non-commercial organisations. Lisa explained that ‘related organisation’ was defined more broadly than ‘commercial source’ in the commercial sponsorship policy of The Cochrane Collaboration. This is because the Steering Group is involved in a wide variety of activities of The Cochrane Collaboration. For example, personal financial ties to publishing companies would not be a potential conflict related to review production by a Cochrane author, but would be considered a potential conflict for a Steering Group member, as the Steering Group is involved in business decisions related to publication.
Action: Jini

3. Matters arising from minutes of the previous meeting, not on this agenda:

3.3.1 Plagiarism in Cochrane reviews: Jim reported that Mike Clarke had undertaken to write a discussion document on this subject, but it had since been decided that this was not a high priority item and would take a great deal of work which Mike had been unable to find the time for. This item needs no further discussion.

3.3.2 Overlap of Co-Chairs to provide continuity; nominations for replacement Co-Chair from October 2006: Jim explained for the benefit of new members that the two Co-Chairs step down from the Steering Group in different years, in order to provide continuity. He drew attention to the fact that Steering Group members should be starting to think soon about who they consider a suitable candidate to succeed Mark as Co-Chair in October 2006. Nominations will be considered at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen, Thailand, from 24 to 26 April 2006.
Post hoc note: See section 1.5.4.7 of The Cochrane Manual for the job description of Co-Chair, and the procedure to be followed in electing someone to this position.
Action: Everyone

3.4 Report from the Chair: Jim referred to his report to the previous Steering Group meeting in Providence, as the result of which, Peter, Davina and Lorne had undertaken to canvass their constituents’ views on whether entities would wish to take on commissioned systematic reviews should the opportunity arise. Davina reported that nothing had yet been done about this. Adrian and Narelle therefore undertook to canvass Co-ordinating Editors’ and RGCs’ views respectively, and convey these views to the Steering Group by the end of this year.
Action: Adrian, Narelle

3.8.1 Progress and priority setting for the next four years: Jim asked Nick to circulate a copy of the Collaboration’s Strategic Plan to the new Steering Group members, after he had attached new names, where appropriate, to action points.
Action: Nick

3.9.6 Copyright of IMS software: Nick advised that the licensing agreement between Rigshospitalet (the host institution of the Nordic Cochrane Centre) and The Cochrane Collaboration for the Information Management System software had been signed, recognising that copyright to the IMS belonged to Rigshospitalet but that the Collaboration had complete freedom to use the software. Nick clarified that the Collaboration would receive a proportion of any revenue if Rigshospitalet were to license the use of the IMS and related software to any third party. Nick paid tribute to the spirit of continued co-operation and support with which Rigshospitalet had conducted these discussions.

3.13.10 Publication Arbiter issues: Davina reported that progress had been made with the Cochrane review that had been discussed at the previous Steering Group meeting in Providence in April 2005.

3.13.13 Contact Information Working Group: Nick had obtained legal advice on the matter of access to the contact details of members of the Collaboration and passed it on. Jini explained that the working group that has proposed the establishment of the new advisory group would report to the Steering Group at its next meeting in Khon Kaen in April 2006.
Action: Jini, Claire, Monica

15.1.1 Guiding principles for CRG editorial teams: Davina reported that she would raise the suggestion of compiling a set of guiding principles for CRG editorial teams, similar to those produced for Centre staff, at the various entity meetings during this Colloquium, and report back to the Steering Group via e-mail shortly after the Colloquium.
Action: Davina

4. Report from the Co-Chairs

Mark highlighted the important progress that had been made now that ISI had agreed to include The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) in the Science Citation Index. He said that data had begun to be collected from the beginning of 2005. The CD-ROM version of The Cochrane Library is now being wholly produced by Wiley, and users are being surveyed towards the end of this year. Mark described a working group that had been set up to focus on improving the interface of The Cochrane Library; several usability sessions run by Wiley had produced some very interesting results. There had been significant progress with the establishment of an Evidence-Based Child Health Journal as a derivative product. Several copyright issues had recently been resolved thanks to Nick, and there had been some developments with regard to the possibility of national provision of The Cochrane Library in Europe. The issue of CENTRAL would be discussed in depth later in this meeting. The Funding Working Party was to hold a meeting within the next few days. Jim added that for the past five years there had been a meeting at each Colloquium of actual and potential funders, known as the Funders’ Forum. He reported that by mutual agreement this Forum had now been disbanded, and Nick would be asking Ron Stamp of the UK Department of Health to shut down the Funders’ Forum website as soon as possible, or put a message onto the site explaining that the Forum had been disbanded. There was some discussion about relationships with the Collaboration’s funders and the need to think strategically in the longer term. Sally was asked to stress at the forthcoming Centre Directors’ meeting that they were responsible for ensuring that funders within their area felt appreciated, and that the funders fully understood they were making a global contribution. Appreciation was expressed to Dan Fox of the Milbank Memorial Fund and to Ron Stamp for their contributions to this initiative over the years.
Action: Nick, Sally

5. Chief Executive Officer – contract renewal

Nick Royle was absent from the following discussion:
Jim reported that he, Mark and Jordi had recently conducted the Chief Executive Officer’s annual appraisal and recommended that his contract be renewed for two years; this was approved. He would continue to have an appraisal annually, and would receive an annual cost of living salary increase in accordance with the appropriate NHS scale. The next appraisal should take place before Mark stepped down as Co-Chair, to provide continuity. Peter said the Co-ordinating Editors had recommended that the views of all entity leaders and key stakeholders who interact on a regular basis with the CEO should be solicited in future appraisals.
Action: Mark, Steff

6. Report from the Treasurer on financial and legal matters:

6.1 Report and Financial Statements: Jon took people through the documents related to the annual audit, which were to be officially approved at the Annual General Meetings on 23 October 2005. He said that the Collaboration was in a financially healthy position: the apparent lack of increase in income in 2004-05 was misleading, and due to the change in the accounting period on the change of publisher.

6.2 Current financial position and cash flow forecast: Jon was asked to provide an explanation on the electronic version of the spreadsheet about the funds held temporarily by The Cochrane Collaboration during the transfer of the US Cochrane Center (USCC) from Brown University to Johns Hopkins University. This was because the unexpired portion of a grant from the Collaboration to the USCC via Brown University was returned to the Collaboration when Kay Dickersin’s contract with Brown University was coming to an end. The work for which this grant had been made still needed to be done at Johns Hopkins University (JHU), once Kay had taken up her position there. The funds could not be transferred before her move because she did not yet have an official position at JHU. Nick explained various aspects of the cash flow forecast, and drew attention to the increased royalties which had led to a forecast rise in the projected income over the next few years. Liz raised the issue of the various risks facing the Collaboration, such as the cost of updating strategic reviews. Sally said that providing 85 sponsored entity registration fees to the Colloquium organisers from core funds had been invaluable to the hosts of the Melbourne Colloquium, and it was agreed to continue to offer this to future Colloquium hosts. Nick was asked to offer this to the Dublin Colloquium organisers.
Action: Jon, Nick

6.3 New regulations governing reporting of charities’ accounts: Nick pointed out that there had been a change in the regulations governing charities’ reporting of their accounts; this paper had been included for information only. If Steering Group members had any suggestions for improvements, he asked them to let him know. He pointed out that this document provided a template for an annual report in the future if required.

6.4 Discretionary Fund expenditure: The statement of expenditure from this Fund in the current financial year was noted. Entity representatives were asked to remind their constituents of the existence of this Fund. Jini was asked to check that the important criterion that applications should be for projects of widespread benefit is adequately emphasised in The Cochrane Manual, and to publicise the existence of the Fund again to all entities and in CCInfo and Cochrane News.
Action: Everyone, Jini

6.5 Cochrane Foundation operating rules: This item was for information only. Nick said he would be putting some information about the Foundation Fund onto the website shortly, after deleting the words “if there was a perceived risk….conclusions” from the third paragraph; he would include information on the state of the Fund. There should be discussion at the Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen about the criteria for disbursing the money accumulated in this Fund, which was set up to receive unrestricted donations. There could be some unacceptable sources of funds but these have yet to be identified.
Action: Nick

7. Report from the Chief Executive Officer

Nick reported on his activities since the last Steering Group meeting. In particular, he drew attention to early discussions over a potential ‘national provision’ for the whole of the European Union, which might included translation of key content. Discussions surrounding this provision are still at an early stage. The first national licence for New Zealand would be announced during the Colloquium, as would renewal of the national licence for Australia, and discussions about a national licence for India were progressing well.

Nick emphasised the importance of the Information Management System (IMS) to the Collaboration’s continuing ability to produce Cochrane reviews in an increasingly cost-effective and efficient way. CRGs can only handle production of a certain number of reviews: using the IMS should increase their capacity; thus, improving production processes through the IMS is the most effective way open to the Collaboration at present to be able to cope with ever-rising demands within tight budgets. Nick showed slides demonstrating the slowing in the rate of increase in production of Cochrane reviews, and showed how these figures could be used to measure increased productivity in the future.

Nick briefly mentioned the European Union Network for HTA (‘EUNetHTA’) project that had been discussed previously, noting that the European Commission had now confirmed financing for the project. The total funding was small, but the Collaboration’s participation, beyond its ability to offer other participants significant assistance, was perceived as important if the Collaboration was to be seen to play its part in a co-ordinated approach to systematic reviewing and HTA in Europe and beyond.

It was agreed that Nick’s involvement with developing national licences was the most effective way of producing new, unrestricted, infrastructure funding that could be used for Collaboration-wide benefit. Project funding, whilst sometimes useful, did not always allow entities to concentrate on their core functions.

8.            Information Management System (IMS)

8.1            IMS developments: Jim declared a conflict of interest because the Review Group Co-ordinator of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group was a member of the IMS Support Team. He emphasised the critical importance of the IMS to the core work of the Collaboration. Monica Kjeldstrøm, Director of the IMS, gave some brief background information about the development of the IMS. All Cochrane Review Groups would be using the new system fully by the end of 2006. She explained that the system could help everyone to work more effectively and avoid duplication of effort; for instance, many questions used for monitoring and reporting purposes could be answered from data already held within the IMS. Specialised registers of studies could be completely integrated within the IMS and maintained online; these registers might also be able to form the basis of CENTRAL. Monica also spoke about plans for development beyond RevMan 5.0, and hopes of enhancing support for diagnostic test reviews, umbrella reviews, the Summary of Findings tables, and the capability to continue to meet users’ needs. The IMS could be used as a development platform, and could provide support for continuous publication and quality assurance. Monica explained that the IMS is the electronic infrastructure of The Cochrane Collaboration, and pointed out that the Collaboration’s financial contribution to the IMS is about one per cent of the Collaboration’s total expenditure.

8.2            Report from the IMSG: This item was moved up the agenda for discussion in conjunction with Monica’s presentation. The IMSG strongly supported approval of the requested budget for future development of the IMS. Monica explained the revised figures over those that had she had presented to the Steering Group at their previous meeting in Providence, which had been estimates only. She stressed that the IMS was a core function of the Collaboration, and the importance of its development continuing beyond 2006. Liz pointed out that the IMS was as much a core function of the Collaboration as the Secretariat. Sally made the point that the Steering Group should approve funds for the future so that consideration did not need to be given to this issue annually; expansion of the IMS was a matter for discussion by the IMSG. Sally also made the point that when new initiatives were brought to the Steering Group, resource implications for the IMS should also be considered.

Monica Kjeldstrøm was absent from the following discussion:

8.2.1 Rob said that the cost to the Collaboration of the IMS was relatively low due to the matching funding from Rigshospitalet, and Janet thought it was essential to the Collaboration. Jim said questions had been asked in the past as to why the IMS had not been put out to tender originally. He explained that this was because about fifty per cent of the funding was already being provided by Rigshospitalet, and that the IMS team at the Nordic Cochrane Centre had unparalleled expertise and experience in software development specifically geared to the needs of the Collaboration.

8.2.2 Nick suggested that the Steering Group was actually considering two related issues: firstly, the need for continuing maintenance and development of the Collaboration’s software, which Monica had outlined eloquently and to which there was general agreement; secondly, the purchasing decision as to whether to use Rigshospitalet/the NCC IMS team or to go out to tender. He was of the opinion that although a tendering exercise might generate savings, the Steering Group did not have the necessary information upon which to form an opinion, and that there were good reasons why using the NCC IMS team was more appropriate for the Collaboration at this stage in its development. These included the significant contribution made by Rigshospitalet to development costs; the experience of the NCC IMS team in developing software for the Collaboration; and, crucially, the need for the flexibility to be able to adapt to changing needs and circumstances, an area that could be expected to increase costs considerably if an outsourced solution was chosen. Given the questions alluded to by Jim about why this project had not been tendered for, Nick suggested that these reasons be formally minuted. Sally pointed out that the decision to support in-house development of the software had always been well documented in IMSG reports to the Steering Group.

8.2.3 Jon referred to the fact that Wiley had hugely underestimated the costs of publishing The Cochrane Library, as an example of where an external company had found it difficult to gauge the work involved in producing the Collaboration’s output. Lisa pointed out that the Collaboration was well satisfied with the productivity of the NCC IMS team and the flexibility of the system. Jim said that matching funds from Rigshospitalet could theoretically be in jeopardy in future, but if the Collaboration contributed adequately to this endeavour, Rigshospitalet might be more willing to contribute matching funds. Also, this kind of model would encourage Cochrane entities to contribute meaningfully towards development of the system.

8.2.4 Monica returned to the meeting at this point, and Jim advised her that her requested budget had been approved. He asked Jini to record in the minutes that the Steering Group appreciated the enormous contribution of both Rigshospitalet and the NCC IMS team, and thanked the team for their unique and invaluable contribution. The importance was emphasised of the need to consider the resource implications of all requests to the IMS team to take on special tasks. Nick was asked to produce a draft letter of agreement for discussion at the next Executive teleconference in late November, setting out the timeline and deliverables to be adhered to for the funding that had now been approved for the IMS, including an additional amount to ensure that the Archie System Developer role is supported through to 31 March 2009. The amounts, including maintenance and development, totalled £118,348 for the period 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, and £112,585 for the period 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009.
Action: Nick

8.3 The future of the IMS Support Team: Monica explained that the contracts for the members of the IMS Support Team were due to expire in July 2006, although the budget for this initiative had been approved until the end of March 2007. It was agreed that the IMS Support Team members’ contracts should be extended unchanged until the end of the existing funding period (i.e. March 2007). After that, it might be necessary either to expand or to reduce the hours of the IMS Support Team depending on the entities’ ability to work within the IMS. Members of the Support Team had started to visit entities to assist them in learning to use the IMS. Monica would provide a report for the Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen in April 2006. Davina reported on the improved morale among Review Group Co-ordinators and Trials Search Co-ordinators as the result of contact with members of the IMS Support Team. It was further suggested that the Support Team role might in the future be expanded to reflect the support already offered informally for non-IMS related matters.
Action: Monica

9. Website development project: progress report and five-year budget plan
Nick provided some background to the website development project. Dave Booker of the German Cochrane Centre had provided both a minimum budget and a proposed increased budget, on the understanding that the development team member was a short-term arrangement. This short-term contract had already been extended for six months, and a further extension was being requested. Janet declared that she had a conflict of interest because the plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews were now available on the website. She said the website team and the IMS team had worked extremely hard to this end and she expressed her appreciation for this. She also expressed support for the website as a way of leading people to The Cochrane Library, as it was the only way that many people had of accessing the abstracts and plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews. The significant size of the budget for website development as a proportion of the Collaboration’s overall core expenditure was discussed. Narelle pointed out that the only place at the moment to find Intranet material was on the Collaboration website, but it was pointed out that much of the internal Collaboration material currently on the site could now be made available within the IMS instead. Peter suggested the establishment of a working group, led by Nick, for wider consideration of the Collaboration’s principal website, including its functions, operation, use and usability. This suggestion was agreed to, and the working group should produce a discussion document for Khon Kaen, after broad consultation with members of the Collaboration; the financial aspects as well as content should be considered by this working group. Janet volunteered to be involved, as did Herb Turner to give a useful third-party view, and Nick was asked to draft some proposed terms of reference for discussion in the next Executive teleconference in late November. In the meantime, funding should remain as in the cash flow forecast, with a review at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen. The German Cochrane Centre’s current contract should be extended in the first instance to the end of June 2006. Future decisions would be based on the discussions in Khon Kaen. Appreciation was expressed to Dave Booker and Greg Saunders for all the hard work that had gone into developing the website to date, and Mark undertook to convey the content of this discussion to Dave in person after the meeting.
Action: Nick, Mark

Mark Davies took over as Chair of the meeting at this point.

10. Annual General Meetings:

10.1 Conduct and format: Mark advised that presentation of the Kenneth Warren Prize and the Chris Silagy Prize, acknowledgement of Gill Gyte’s contribution as Ombudsman for the past five years, and a presentation about the Collaboration’s response to the tsunami, that hit many parts of Asia and Africa in December 2004, would precede the Annual General Meetings on 23 October 2005. Mike Clarke would chair the part of the meeting relating to Trading Company issues, and Mark would then chair the meeting for Jon’s presentation of graphs of the Collaboration’s financial position, and the item on ISI and impact factors. Jordi was asked to ensure that the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group consider Ian Roberts’ statement about carbon emissions at their forthcoming meeting, and Mike Clarke would also raise this during the Annual General Meetings; the Steering Group had already spent some time discussing it, and the Dublin Colloquium organisers had been asked to do so as well.
Action: Jordi

10.2 Kenneth Warren Prize - 2005 award and fund balance: Dr Marilla Lucero from the Department of Medicine, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, the Philippines is the 2005 recipient of the Kenneth Warren Prize. Dr Lucero is the principal author of the review of ‘Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine-type invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumonia with consolidation on x-ray in children under two years of age'. The amount remaining in the Kenneth Warren Prize account is approximately £42,808.

11.        Report from Wiley representatives

11.1            Deborah Dixon and Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert of John Wiley and Sons attended the meeting for this item only. Deborah D described the level of royalties that the Collaboration could expect to receive over the coming year. She discussed the strategic imperatives of improving the usability and application of The Cochrane Library, enhancement of the quality of the product, accessibility and market penetration, and derivative products. Deborah PG described a recent usability audit mounted by Wiley. This audit has resulted in a branding redesign project, which would report in early 2006 to suggest improvements to the home page of The Cochrane Library on the Wiley InterScience site. In line with the normal development cycle an improved interface would be launched in January 2006, to include improvements to MeSH searching, an Advanced Search facility, search default to relevancy and query to abstract and keyword. Deborah PG said that work was needed in the area of the topics list, and a working group to focus on the new interface now reported to the Publishing Policy Group and would also focus on the results of the audit.

11.2            Other areas of progress were the achievement of citation of the contents of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Science Citation Index from January 2005, so that an impact factor would be calculated over 2007 which would be available in 2008. This means that ISI will count citations over the entire year 2007 to Cochrane reviews published in 2005 and 2006; the impact factor for 2007 will thus become available in 2008. Other items to note are the production of a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) with the emphasis on sharing information with review authors; also, centralised copy editing in the new IMS; and also production and conversion plans with the new IMS, with Wiley taking over full production of The Cochrane Library from Issue 2, 2006. Funders of national provisions wanted to find out who was using The Cochrane Library, so Wiley would conduct a short online survey twice a year to gather these data; Liz volunteered to assist in ensuring that the survey asked appropriate questions and requested Wiley to pay attention to more than just clinical interventions. Deborah PG also reported on new and renewed national provisions, and potential new national provisions in India, Taiwan, Singapore and Europe. Efforts had increased to convert single institutional users to The Cochrane Library to site-wide access. Deborah D described Wiley’s penetration of the Japanese and American markets with subscriptions to The Cochrane Library, and current and future initiatives for derivative products.

Action: Deborah D, Deborah PG, Liz

12. Cost of a Cochrane review
Jim provided some background to the work that Miranda Mugford and colleagues had done in providing an estimate of the cost of a typical Cochrane review. Jon, Hans and Nick were asked to undertake a critique of this, and bring it to the Executive. Jon would contact Miranda to thank her and let her know that this assessment was taking place.
Action: Jon, Hans, Nick

13. Evolution of the Developing Countries Initiative as a permanent entity

Sally explained that the Monitoring and Registration Group had been charged with coming up with a recommendation as to the way forward for this initiative. Xavier Bonfill, Director of the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, had prepared a discussion document on this issue and feedback about it was currently being gathered. Zbys explained that a meeting of members of developing countries was being held during the Melbourne Colloquium, and that a proposal would then be forthcoming to establish a working group to focus on this issue, with a view to establishing the Developing Countries Initiative as some form of official entity within the Collaboration. The Steering Group will discuss this at its next meeting in Khon Kaen.
Action: Sally, Zbys

14. Strategic global health leadership opportunities for The Cochrane Collaboration
Liz spoke to the document she had prepared recommending that the Steering Group should create opportunities for open discussion of the future of The Cochrane Collaboration in terms of scope, and the infrastructure expertise and process required for priority review orientation and research gaps for global health decision-making; also that the Steering Group should consider these issues and potentially similar issues that are relevant for clinical and basic research. Peter suggested that time be set aside to discuss the issue of prioritisation of key topic reviews at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen. Lisa said that two Cochrane Review Groups with which she was involved had undertaken such prioritisation exercises, which could inform a wider initiative. It was agreed to spend half a day in Khon Kaen brainstorming these issues, consulting widely with members of the Collaboration, and using a very structured approach to ensure fruitful discussion. Liz agreed to take the lead and come up with a plan of action for consideration by the Executive at its next meeting in late November.
Action: Liz, Peter, Lisa

15. Steering Group elections
Alessandro Liberati, Director of the Italian Cochrane Centre, attended the meeting for discussion of this item, to inform him in planning his review of the Steering Group.

15.1 Issues arising from 2005 elections: The Steering Group agreed to the establishment of a small working group to deal with election issues, and Jini and Claire were asked to set this up, with a budget of £800 for teleconferences. Jordi said that it was too soon to revisit the issue of whether or not to publicise the number of votes per election candidate. Monica said she was unable to commit to the 2006 Steering Group elections being able to be conducted via the IMS. To assist communications more generally within the Collaboration, it was agreed that it would be helpful if the Secretariat would pool data about the use of the Skype software for free telephone calls, with a view to a policy being established to facilitate Skype use. In the meantime, people should be encouraged to add their Skype addresses to the IMS.
Action: Jini, Claire

15.2 Trials Search Co-ordinators’ concerns: Narelle reported the strength of feeling among TSCs about their lack of representation on the Steering Group. It was a matter of concern to them that the Steering Group had expressed reluctance at their previous meeting in Providence to increase the size of the Group at that time, and had given the anticipated review of the Steering Group as a reason to defer a decision on having separate RGC and TSC representatives. Jim said he thought this had not been a sensible decision, and the Steering Group agreed that a position for a TSC representative should be created as soon as possible. The term of this position would be until the review of the Steering Group had been completed (during which the issue of representation of all types of entity was being revisited) and a decision made by the Steering Group as to the ultimate make-up of its membership. Claire was asked to arrange an election for a TSC representative as soon as possible, using the IMS to identify to whom to send voting papers. Only those entities with TSCs and Information Specialists on staff would be entitled to vote, and each such entity would have one vote. Narelle was happy to continue to represent RGCs and TSCs until a separate TSC representative had been elected. The fine details of this election should be worked out between the Co-Chairs, Narelle and the Secretariat. [See also item 22.1.2 below.]
Action: Mark, Steff, Narelle, Jini, Claire

15.3 Centre representation: Rob raised the fact that, of the four Centre representative positions, one must be a Centre Director and one a non-Director under the current rules. He asked for clarification as to whether Branch Directors could be nominated for the Director position or only for the non-Director position. The position currently filled by Jordi is for a non-Director member of Centre staff. It was agreed that, until the review of the Steering Group had been completed, there should be a minimum of one Centre Director (who is not a Branch Director), one member of Centre staff (who is neither a Director nor a Branch Director), and two members of Centres (whatever position they hold in a Centre or a Branch of a Centre). Claire was asked to disseminate this decision to all entities via e-mail, CCInfo and Cochrane News.
Action: Claire

16. Monitoring the Steering Group
Alessandro Liberati, Director of the Italian Cochrane Centre, attended the meeting for discussion of this item, as he had accepted to chair the panel which would conduct the review of the Steering Group. The following decisions were made:
Timeframe: The review would commence in November. Alessandro undertook to provide an interim report to the Steering Group for their meeting in Khon Kaen in April 2006, and to provide the final report by the end of July 2006.
Methods: Alessandro explained that he would select a panel of eight people, four internal members of the Collaboration and four external members. The main areas of focus would be communication, representation, organisational issues (such as composition and roles), strategic guidance for prioritisation, long-term sustainability, and relationships with external agencies.
Constituencies: Ex-members of the Steering Group would be asked for their views as they well understand the expectations of the Steering Group; the views of members of Cochrane entities and stakeholders would also be canvassed, asking questions such as whether they thought the Collaboration was well led. Alessandro was asked to undertake broad consultation as to whom to consult in the latter category, to ensure broad geographical representation. He explained that he intended the review panel to undertake an analysis of key documents produced by the Steering Group. It was agreed that the impact of the position of CEO on the functioning of the Steering Group should be reviewed rather than an evaluation of the incumbent of this position.
Financial support: Alessandro asked for financial support for telephone communications and for producing the evaluation survey, and for support for a member of his staff to help him in conducting this review; he was asked to produce a budget for the next Executive teleconference on 28 November, as well as a detailed description of the way he planned to conduct this review.
Action: Alessandro

17. Proposed membership of CCSG sub- and advisory groups
Mark confirmed that the proposed membership of the various sub- and advisory groups to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group (CCSG) had been agreed by everyone in advance of the meeting. Adrian had joined the Executive and would act as liaison with the Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG), and Peter had moved to the Publishing Policy Group. Narelle agreed to join the CPAG in place of Sally who, as Co-Convenor of the MRG, the Handbook Advisory Group and the Quality Advisory Group, had more than enough to do already. These decisions should be reflected in the membership of the relevant e-mail discussion lists, in the appendix to ‘The structure and remit of groups accountable to the Steering Group’ on the website, in the IMS and elsewhere as soon as possible.
Action: Claire, Diana

18. Comments from outgoing CCSG members
Davina Ghersi and Jim Neilson were invited to comment on their time as members of the Steering Group. Davina said it had been a fascinating experience working with such committed people in The Cochrane Collaboration. She had enjoyed her time on the Steering Group and was confident that Narelle Willis would do a wonderful job in replacing her. Jim said he had also found it enjoyable but that he was looking forward to spending more time with his Review Group. He stressed the importance of updating reviews and was delighted that Rob was leading a working group to look at ways of meeting this challenge. He appreciated Narelle’s comments about the huge pressures faced by Cochrane Review Groups. He said that the new initiative to prepare reviews of screening and diagnostic tests provided an opportunity to approach funders and he wished Nick well in doing so. Jim said that the Steering Group had done an injustice to Trials Search Co-ordinators at their previous meeting in Providence, and strongly supported them having their own representative on the Steering Group. He wished Mark and Steff well as Co-Chairs, and was sure they would receive good support from the members of the Steering Group and Secretariat staff. Mark warmly thanked both Jim and Davina for their efforts over the last six years.

Steff Lewis took over as Chair of the meeting at this point.

Steff welcomed Donna Gillies (representing authors), Adrian Grant (representing Co-ordinating Editors), Narelle Willis (representing RGCs and TSCs) and Hans van der Wouden (representing members of CRGs ‘at large’), who had joined the Steering Group officially at the Annual General Meeting of The Cochrane Collaboration on 23 October 2005.

19. James Lind Alliance
Jon pointed out that most of the challenges in Sally Crowe’s letter to the Steering Group were to Cochrane Review Groups, whom Adrian agreed were well placed to act in an overarching capacity, particularly the UK-based entities. Jon asked Sally (Green) to draw the attention of the members of the Handbook Advisory Group to Sally Crowe’s point about the conclusions of reviews. Liz and Lisa said they had already arranged to discuss the issue of prioritisation of reviews at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen (see item 14 above). The importance was stressed of making all Cochrane entities aware of the James Lind Alliance and the suggested strategies, and giving them a contact point at the JLA; Steff undertook to communicate with them in this way and to forward Sally Crowe’s letter to them.
Action: Sally, Steff

20. Diagnostic test accuracy reviews
Rob declared a conflict of interest on this issue. Jon explained to the new members of the Steering Group that this initiative had been mounted in 2003. The items they had been asked to work on had now mostly been accomplished. The challenge now was how to help CRGs to prepare these types of review. Jon explained that the members of the working group did not have the expertise or resources to implement this initiative within CRGs. Jon requested funding for four regional support centres at or near Cochrane Centres which have the relevant expertise, in Oxford (for the UK), Amsterdam (for Europe), Sydney (for Australia and New Zealand), and Baltimore (for North America). They would each ideally be staffed by three people (a methodologist/statistician, a TSC/information specialist, and an RGC) to relieve the workload of CRGs. The Department of Health in the UK had said this was a high priority but that there was no money for this at the moment. A grant application had been made to the NH&MRC in Australia under the Health Services Research Program but it had not been shortlisted. It was agreed to consider a proposal from Jon for funding at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen. In the meantime, the Funding Working Party was asked to address this after the Colloquium. Jon stressed the enthusiasm within the Collaboration for this initiative, and the importance of keeping the momentum going. Mark was asked to write to the funders who had originally agreed to fund these reviews. Nick was asked to request Wiley to consider providing an advance to support this initiative.
Action: Jon, Mark, Nick

21. Reports to the Steering Group:

21.1 Publishing Policy Group (PPG): Mark confirmed that Julie Glanville of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in York, UK, had recently replaced Jos Kleijnen on the PPG and also fulfilled the role of search specialist on this group. Peter had now joined the PPG and his experience should be invaluable. Mark tabled the proposed changes to the remit and membership of the PPG (to include a Co-ordinating Editor and a search specialist) and these were agreed to.

21.2 Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG): Rob reported that CRGs had been monitored this year, and all entities other than CRGs would be monitored in 2006. Key issues that had arisen in this year’s monitoring process concerned the value of journal handsearching, the registration criteria for Methods Groups, and future plans for submitting specialised registers to CENTRAL. The Steering Group approved the revisions to the Methods Group registration criteria which Jini should add to The Cochrane Manual. Rob explained that the Co-ordinating Editor of the Sexually Transmitted Diseases Group was in the process of negotiating with others to take over the editorial base; if this turned out not to be successful, there were plans for merging the STD Group with another Cochrane Review Group. Approval was sought for the criteria for registering a new entity to be amended to include some criteria for entity leaders: the Steering Group agreed that the MRG should consult with members of the Collaboration about these proposed additional criteria.
Action: Jini, Rob, Sally

21.3 Cochrane CENTRAL Advisory Group (CCAG): Mark confirmed that the US Cochrane Center had found it was unable to continue to be responsible for CENTRAL on its recent relocation from Brown University to Johns Hopkins University. Mark expressed thanks to Kay Dickersin and the staff of the USCC for years of hard work compiling CENTRAL. The Steering Group agreed that the CCAG should now be disbanded, and Davina and Steff were asked to convey this decision to its members at their forthcoming meeting, expressing the Steering Group’s appreciation to the members for their input. Mark said that this now provided an opportunity for a complete review of CENTRAL, and problems were noted due to the fact that the CENTRAL Management Plan was out of date and did not match current practice for submitting specialised registers for inclusion in CENTRAL. Davina and Steff proposed the formation of a small committee, to include Adrian, to develop a strategic plan for CENTRAL and to ask such questions as whether the Collaboration continues to need CENTRAL, and if so, in what form. This committee should liaise with the IMSG and consult closely with Trials Search Co-ordinators and Information Specialists, to produce recommendations for discussion by the Steering Group at its next meeting in Khon Kaen; a budget of £800 was approved to enable teleconferences to take place to discuss the future of CENTRAL. Steff explained that the USCC would publish one more issue of CENTRAL, which would appear in Issue 2, 2006. Therefore, the potential for no further updated version of CENTRAL would be from Issue 3, 2006. Sally thanked Davina and Steff for all their hard work and sensible recommendations for the way forward, and Mark undertook to advise members of the Collaboration of these decisions via the entity e-mail lists and CCInfo.
Action: Davina, Steff, Adrian, Mark

21.4 Cochrane Library Users’ Group (CLUG): Thanks were expressed to the Convenor, Emma Irvin, for this Group’s report. The report was for information only, as no decisions were required of the Steering Group.

21.5 Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG): Steff thanked the Convenors of the CPAG for their report. Appendix 1 of this report should contain more considered wording about the Stavanger model of Colloquium not being suitable for newcomers, so as not to convey exclusivity. Jon had reservations about this, because of the implications for methodologists, and these implications should be highlighted in the report. The attention of future Colloquium organisers should be drawn to Appendix 2 to the report concerning revisions to the Colloquium sponsorship policy. Jordi was asked to take these comments to the CPAG and bring an amended version of the CPAG’s report and appendices to the Executive for approval. It was agreed that the hosts of the Colloquia in Ireland, Brasil and Germany should operate under the existing Colloquium sponsorship policy, but that the CPAG should clarify their proposed two options with regard to commercial sponsorship of Colloquia beyond 2009, and make recommendations to the Steering Group as to their preferred option.
Action: Jordi

21.6 Feedback Management Advisory Group (FMAG): Thanks were expressed to the Convenor, Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin, for this report. This was for information only, as no decisions were required of the Steering Group.

21.7 Handbook Advisory Group (HAG): Sally explained that updating the Handbook was a major project. Wiley had agreed to publish it as a textbook, and this had provided a push to attempt to accomplish the updating by the end of 2006. Sally recommended that there be one substantive update of the Handbook per year. Continuous updates would be provided on a ‘What’s New in the Handbook’ website, with those items being incorporated into the paper version of the Handbook only once a year. Sally stressed that the electronic version of the Handbook would always be kept up to date and be free of charge to those with access to The Cochrane Library. Jordi supported annual updates of the Handbook from the perspective of translating such updates. This recommendation was approved. Sally asked whether the Steering Group would like to have final sign-off before the updated Handbook was handed over to Wiley for publication, but the Steering Group was happy to leave this to the Handbook Advisory Group. Liz mentioned how important it was to have representatives on HAG who understood the spectrum of types and complexities of questions being answered by systematic reviews. Jon explained that a consensus approach was used to verify the content of the various sections of the Handbook. Sally reminded everyone that the methodologists writing the various sections of the Handbook were doing this in their own time, without remuneration. The content and structure were approved. Steff expressed thanks to Sally and her Co-Convenor, Julian Higgins, as well as to the members of the HAG for all their hard work.

21.8 Information Management System Group (IMSG): See item 8.2 above.

21.9 Quality Advisory Group (QAG): Sally explained that she and her Co-Convenor, Harriet MacLehose, had recently revisited the remit and membership of the QAG, and the Steering Group approved the revisions they proposed. Sally was asked to insert the words “on quality” after “guidance” within the Group’s remit, and Claire should then include this revised remit in the document, ‘The structure, remit and membership of groups accountable to the Steering Group’ on the website. It was agreed that uptake of the Visiting Fellowship could be deferred for twelve months if the recipient was unable to do so within the specified time period of one year. Jini should amend the information about the Fellowship on the website and in The Cochrane Manual to reflect this decision.
Action: Sally, Claire, Jini

21.10 Replacement for Gill Gyte as Ombudsman: Steff highlighted the fact that Kathie Clark, former member of the Steering Group and former Co-Director of the Canadian Cochrane Network and Centre, had kindly accepted to take over from Gill Gyte as Ombudsman, sharing the responsibilities of this role with Peter Langhorne. This had already been announced to all entities via e-mail and CCInfo, and Jini had amended The Cochrane Manual to this effect. Steff asked for thanks to be recorded to Gill in these minutes for all she had done for five years in this role on behalf of the Collaboration, and to Kathie for agreeing to take over from her.

21.11 The Publication Arbiter - job description: The job description for the position of Publication Arbiter was approved. The Steering Group did not think it necessary to spell out the various possible types of conflict in the job description. Jini was asked to convey this to David Henderson-Smart and Kay Dickersin, the current Publication Arbiters, to thank them for their work in this role, and to include this job description in The Cochrane Manual.
Action: Jini

21.12 Tsunami Working Party: The Steering Group was grateful for the report from this Working Party which had been set up in the aftermath of the tsunami in December 2004, and for all the hard work behind this initiative. It was supportive of broadening this initiative to consolidate and enhance its relevance to the aftermath of other natural disasters and healthcare emergencies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Sally was asked to convey this to the other members of the Tsunami Working Party, and to thank Mike Clarke in particular for all his hard work in this area.
Action: Sally

21.13 Working Group to look at updating reviews: Rob reported on the activities of this working group whose remit was to look at methods for reducing the number of out-of-date reviews. He drew attention to the fact that only substantively updated reviews would receive credit towards an impact factor. He said that the Group would encourage Wiley to form a working group with ISI to develop a policy for dealing with ‘living’ electronic documents (preferably in collaboration with other publishers of this type of publication). The Working Group would also ask Wiley to provide an overview of existing derivative products, to summarise the process for developing such products, and to make this information available to Cochrane Review Groups and Fields. Rob explained that CRGs were being encouraged to use all possible measures to facilitate and promote the updating of reviews according to the strategies they had developed; these measures would be collated by this Working Group and published as part of the CRG Procedures Collection on the website. The issue of encouraging CRGs to prioritise updating reviews that address important topics will be considered at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen, together with the whole issue of prioritization. Rob was asked to e-mail the Steering Group the Working Group’s list of recommendations about the level of editorial input needed for each different type of update. He was also asked to make a formal proposal for a pilot project for employees from the editorial base to assist with the updating process. The IMS team had already developed the facility for updates to be recorded easily and correctly. It was agreed that the RevMan Advisory Group, the Handbook Advisory Group and this Working Group should continue working on redefining the various dates to be recorded with a review. It was agreed that Fields and Centres should have an additional optional function of assisting with the updating process, and that those entities should be encouraged to consider running updating work- shops, resources permitting. Steff thanked Rob for leading this important initiative.
Action: Rob

21.14 Funding Arbiter: Lisa said that Claire [Allen] was supporting her well in her role as Funding Arbiter. She explained that core Collaboration funds had enabled her to employ someone to undertake an audit of all reviews and protocols in The Cochrane Library to check for compliance with the Collaboration’s commercial sponsorship policy. Lisa flagged that Alessandro Liberati was hard pressed for time to be a member of the Funding Arbitration Panel but that he was keen to remain involved; it was therefore agreed that he should remain on the panel for six months and that his continued involvement beyond that time would be revisited in Khon Kaen. Mark asked for the details of an appeal that had been made against the Funding Arbiter’s decision to be circulated to the Steering Group, and for their comments to be collated and sent to the Co-Chairs, who would then come to a decision about it. Lisa would send Jini some text to clarify the appeal procedure, for inclusion in The Cochrane Manual. It was pointed out that there is currently no mechanism for checking on whether a review has been withdrawn from The Cochrane Library. Lisa was asked to set up such a mechanism and let Mark, as Convenor of the Publishing Policy Group, know what this mechanism would be.
Action: Lisa, Jini

21.15 Funders’ Forum: This has been disbanded: see item 4 above.

21.16 Cochrane-Campbell liaison: Peter handed out a report of his activities in his role as liaison between the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. Dorothy de Moya explained that The Campbell Collaboration now has some infrastructure support from the American Institutes for Research (AIR), and that twenty reviews were in the final stages of preparation. Herb Turner reported that a task force had been formed to rethink the way The Campbell Collaboration's trials register is being developed, with help from Sally Hopewell of the UK Cochrane Centre and other members of The Cochrane Collaboration who are serving on the task force. There would be a report to The Campbell Collaboration's Steering Group for their Colloquium in February 2006, which might turn into a funding proposal for establishing a trials register. Dorothy expressed the hope that Peter would continue in his liaison role; Peter said he was happy to do so, and the Steering Group agreed to this. Dorothy was pleased to learn from Peter that Nick also planned to attend Campbell Collaboration Steering Group meetings in future, as well as their annual Colloquia.

22. Verbal reports from entity representatives:

22.1      Cochrane Review Group issues:

22.1.1            RGC issues: Narelle reported that thirty-six Review Group Co-ordinators had attended the RGCs’ meeting during the Colloquium. There had been discussion about job descriptions, job titles, editorial versus non-editorial responsibilities, and some Collaboration-wide issues. The RGCs had agreed that they possessed several different skills sets so it was proving difficult to come up with a job title that adequately described the role of all RGCs; they had called for a change of job title to contain the word ‘Editor’. Narelle explained that she would be circulating the various suggested job titles to all RGCs. She would also be consulting Co-ordinating Editors and Trials Search Co-ordinators about these, and would report back to the Steering Group.
Action: Narelle

22.1.2            TSC issues: Narelle reported that Trials Search Co-ordinators had expressed very strongly their desire for separate representation on the Steering Group. Some people thought the system of proportional representation (one entity, one vote) was unfair to TSCs. The future of CENTRAL was a big issue and they asked for an interim plan to be put in place because of concerns about stagnation if several issues of The Cochrane Library were to be published without an update of CENTRAL. [See also item 15.2 above.]

22.1.3            Co-ordinating Editor issues: Some Co-ordinating Editors thought they were insufficiently represented on the Steering Group. They would be submitting a paper to Alessandro Liberati on issues that the Co-ordinating Editors at the Melbourne Colloquium had agreed they wished to be addressed, for inclusion in the review of the Steering Group. The Co-ordinating Editors' executive would be submitting a request for financial support to attend mid-year meetings in Khon Kaen in April 2006. A detailed request would be submitted, but the Co-ordinating Editors' executive (like the Steering Group and Centre Directors) felt that a separate meeting without the pressures of the Colloquium was needed to address some urgent and substantive issues that included developing proposals for communication, transparency of decision-making, effective quality assurance/improvement of our outputs, setting of priority reviews, and potential options for umbrella reviews. There was no discussion at the CCSG meeting as to the appropriateness of this.

Action: Peter, Adrian

22.2 Methods Group issues:

22.2.1 Methodological quality improvement projects: Jon described the progress made with the seven project proposals he had brought to the previous Steering Group meeting in Providence, five of which had been funded from core funds, to improve the quality of reviews. It was agreed that funding for more such projects would be considered at the Steering Group meeting in Dublin rather than in Khon Kaen.
Action: Jon

22.2.2             Funding for Methods Groups: The Steering Group had previously agreed that it should be acceptable for Methods Groups to accept commercial funding in certain circumstances. The Methods Group Convenors had proposed five points upon which a commercial funding policy for Methods Groups should be developed. Members of the Steering Group were asked to e-mail Jon their comments on these points by the end of November 2005, so that he could rework the document into a proposed policy for discussion at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen in April 2006.
Action: Everyone, Jon

22.2.3             Qualitative Methods Group: Jon advised the Steering Group that the Qualitative Methods Group wished to be able to prepare Cochrane qualitative reviews, and he had been seeking advice on preparation of a document to bring to the Steering Group in 2006. He was preparing a list of points that such a document would cover, and would e-mail the Steering Group to ask for their input.
Action: Everyone, Jon

22.2.4             Adverse Events Methods Group: Jon reported that Andrew Herxheimer had been convening this sub-group of the Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group since its inception. He said that the sub-group was planning to register as a Methods Group in its own right during 2006, and that other people would be assisting Andrew in leading it.
Action: Jon

22.3 Field/Network issues: Lorne reported on his exploration of the relative lack of interaction between Fields and CRGs and presented a paper outlining the issues. Lorne and Jodie Doyle had attended the RGCs’ meeting and the Co-ordinating Editors’ meeting during the Colloquium to discuss these issues, and had received several helpful suggestions from the RGCs. These were discussed at the Fields meeting and the discussions would continue via e-mail. Identification of peer reviewers and updating of reviews were two suggested areas where increased interaction would be very helpful. Unfortunately, there is no way in the present or planned IMS for a Field to identify their interest in a specific title or protocol. Thus, when peer reviewers or updating are needed, there is no way for the CRG personnel to know of the Field's interest. This could be remedied by the inclusion in the IMS of a set of tags to indicate Field interest. Monica has indicated that this modification would be feasible, but will need Steering Group approval to begin working on it. Lorne was asked to send a proposal for this change to the Executive.

Action: Lorne

22.4 Centre issues: Rob provided feedback from the recent Centre Directors’ meeting. The Centre Directors had strongly supported the continuation of CENTRAL in whatever format it was decided would be the most appropriate. There was also strong support for the continuation of the CD-ROM version of The Cochrane Library or another such format that would be suitable for developing countries. The Centre Directors had called for a review of the structure of the organisation with regard to sustainability. Peter Gøtzsche had asked for his invitation to host the mid-year meetings in 2007 to be considered for 2008 (see item 25 below). It had been suggested that taking stock of the Collaboration’s mission and structures should be part of the next review of the Strategic Plan, but the Co-ordinating Editors had felt strongly that it was too long to wait for this until 2007. Liz suggested that this should be discussed in Khon Kaen as part of the main agenda rather than within the half-day brainstorming session. In the meantime, entity representatives should discuss this with their constituents in order for the most fruitful discussion to be held in Khon Kaen. Nick offered to put together a position paper for consideration by the Steering Group in early January, and canvassing views of members of the Collaboration. Nick was asked to clarify with Peter Gøtzsche his remarks in the recent Centre Directors’ meeting about the future funding of the IMS, regarding the need to allocate additional funds to continue the Archie System Developer post through to 31 March 2009.
Action: Nick

22.5 Consumer Network issues:

22.5.1 Plain language summaries: The Steering Group appreciated the progress report on the development of plain language summaries for reviews in The Cochrane Library. Steff thanked everyone who had been involved for their work in this important area.

22.5.2 Access to The Cochrane Library for contributing Cochrane consumers: Mark described the feedback he had received from Steering Group members about the proposal for contributing Cochrane consumers to have complimentary access to The Cochrane Library. Providing such access to 200 consumers at a cost of £6 per issue of The Cochrane Library for four issues per year would amount to a total of £4800 per year. Concerns had been expressed that several of the criteria did not warrant a complimentary subscription (such as attendance at Colloquia, or consumers who had done five hours’ handsearching), but there had been broad acceptance of the other criteria. Mark volunteered to reword the criteria and the proposal was approved in principle. The number of complimentary subscriptions was limited to 200, and it would be up to the Consumer Network to decide to whom this complimentary access should be provided. Consumers in countries with national provision would be excluded from this arrangement.
Action: Mark

23. Umbrella reviews
There was encouragement for the work of the Umbrella Reviews Working Group, led by Lorne. An interim budget of £1000 was approved for the Group to meet by teleconference between now and the end of the financial year in March 2006. Discussion of this Working Group’s recommendations should be given priority at the next Steering Group meeting in Khon Kaen.
Action: Lorne

24. Issues raised by the Trading Company Directors
Monica reported on behalf of her Co-Directors, Mike Clarke and Peter Langhorne. She drew attention to the table of key dates, indicating that all legal and financial responsibilities had been met to date. No questions were raised.

25. The next three Steering Group meetings:

25.1 Khon Kaen, Thailand (24-26 April 2006): Pisake Lumbiganon, Director of the Thai Cochrane Network, attended the meeting for discussion of this item. He had e-mailed the Steering Group several questions about the proposed content of the symposium he was organising in Khon Kaen on 22 April 2006. The Steering Group approved his suggestions and Steff asked everyone to let Pisake know by e-mail if they would be available to participate in the symposium themselves. Mike Clarke, Jeremy Grimshaw, Alessandro Liberati and Rob Scholten had already offered to help Pisake to organise this symposium. Jini had already begun to liaise with him over the practicalities of organising the Steering Group meeting, travel to Khon Kaen, and accommodation.
Action: Rob

25.2 Dublin, Ireland (22 and 26 October 2006): There was nothing to discuss with regard to the Steering Group meeting during the 2006 Colloquium.

25.3 Amsterdam, The Netherlands (20-22 April 2007): There was nothing to discuss with regard to the mid-year meeting of the Steering Group in 2007.

26. Invitations to host the 2008 mid-year meetings
The Steering Group and Centre Directors had received three invitations to hold their mid-year meetings in 2008 in Chengdu (China), Vellore (India) and Copenhagen (Denmark). At their recent meeting the Centre Directors had agreed to leave this decision to the Steering Group. After some discussion Mark was asked to write and accept Prathap Tharyan’s invitation to hold these meetings at the Christian Medical College in Vellore. He would also write and thank the Directors of the Chinese and Nordic Cochrane Centres for their invitations and let them know of this decision.
Action: Mark

27. ‘Colloquium Manager’ software
The Steering Group approved the request of the Norwegian branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre for a budget of the sterling equivalent of 85,000 Norwegian krone (in the region of £7400, depending on exchange rate fluctations) for the further development, customisation and maintenance of the Colloquium Manager software. Jini was asked to convey this decision to Claire Glenton and arrange for the transfer of funds. The Steering Group expressed their gratitude to Jan Arve Dyrnes for his hard work in making this software meet the needs of the Melbourne Colloquium organisers and the conference delegates.
Action: Jini

28. The next three Cochrane Colloquia
There was nothing to discuss with regard to the Colloquium in Dublin, Ireland, from 23 to 26 October 2006, nor with regard to the Colloquium in São Paulo, Brazil, from 21 to 25 October 2007. Rob reported that Gerd Antes, Director of the German Cochrane Centre, would publicise the location and dates of the 2008 Colloquium in Germany as soon as the dates of the university term are known.

29. Spreadsheet of CCSG members’ outstanding action items
Steff reminded everyone to let Diana know when they had completed any of their action items from this meeting.
Action: Everyone

30. Any other business
There were no items of additional business.

31. Thanks to the host and the Secretariat staff
Steff warmly thanked the staff of the Australasian Cochrane Centre for hosting such a well run and enjoyable Colloquium, and for the excellent arrangements for the two Steering Group meetings. She also thanked the staff of the Secretariat for the efficient preparation of the agenda material for these meetings, and thanked Jini for taking the minutes.

APPENDIX

Declarations of interest - October 2005

Godwin Aja, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Cochrane Library Users Group; Author, Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group; Member, Cochrane Consumers and Communication 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 an 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.

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 an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: Honorarium from Thompson Micromedex for serving on the editorial board of their DiseaseDex publication.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation?
Yes: Small gifts from the Welch Allyn Corporation and the Dutch Dairy Council.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Lisa Bero, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Member, Feedback Management Advisory Group; Member, Funding Arbitration Panel; Member, Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: In the past five years, I have received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (research money derived from the tax on cigarettes), and Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
Yes: I have received consulting fees (4 times) from the University of Colorado for conducting workshops in evidence-based medicine. I receive an annual consulting fee from British Medical Journal Publishing for serving as a senior editor for Tobacco Control.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have accepted honoraria ($50 to $1000 US on a one-time basis) from the Canadian National Cancer Institute and AHRQ for grant review, Research Triangle Institute and Health Systems Research, Inc. for methodological consultation, the Friends Research Institute for a talk on financial conflicts of interest and clinical trials, The Association of Medical Writers and Dartmouth University for talks on reporting of scientific research in the lay press, and the World Health Organization and Pomona University - European Union Center for talks on public commentary on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Kaiser Permanente for talks on a) evaluating the quality of research and b) tobacco industry manipulation of research, and the World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics for a talk on managing financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No. Since 1991, I have been a full-time faculty employee of the University of California, San Francisco.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: I receive about $50.00US per year in royalty fees from the University of California Press for the publication of The Cigarette Papers.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Mark Davies, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Convenor, Publishing Policy Group; Member, Quality Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Anaesthesia, Neonatal and Skin Review Groups; Peer Reviewer, Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
Yes: (a) I am a consultant neonatologist: part of my income is derived from private practice in neonatology; (b) I have acted as a consultant to BMJ Books reviewing manuscripts and proposals; but no other for-profit companies; (c) In 2003 I co-edited and published 'Pocket notes on neonatology' (ISBN 0-9750756-0-8) when the printing costs were partially met by grants from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd and Abbott Australasia Pty Ltd.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No. 4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Jon Deeks, Methods Group Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Treasurer; Co-Convenor, Statistical Methods Group, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews Working Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Member, Quality Advisory Group, RevMan Advisory Group, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group, Reporting Bias Methods Group:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?

Yes: I received funding from 2001 to 2003 to employ a research fellow from Pfizer Ltd. From 2004-2007 my salary is funded by a UK DOH NCC RCD Senior Research Fellowship in Evidence Synthesis. I have received grants from the UK NHS Research Methodology Programme. I have been a co-investigator on grants from the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. I have funding from Cochrane Collaboration core funds to co-ordinate the initiative to develop Cochrane Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind)

for an organisation?
Yes: I received payment from the BMJ for reviewing and attending committees from 2000-2005. I was paid consultancy fees by Pfizer Ltd for statistical advice in 2001 and 2002.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I received an honorarium for lecturing from NICE in 2004.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.

5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Zbigniew Fedorowicz, Representative of all members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director, Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Information Management System Group; Member, Health Related Quality of Life Methods Group, Member and Peer Referee, Cochrane Oral Health Review Group; Member, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Review Group; and Member, 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 an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Donna Gillies, Author Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group; Peer Reviewer, Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis 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 have received Small Grants funding from the Children’s Hospital at Westmead.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
I have not received but am entitled to receive 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.

Davina Ghersi, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of Review Group Co-ordinators and Trials Search Co-ordinators), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Steering Group Executive; Editor and Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Breast Cancer Review Group; Member, Cochrane Cancer Network; Member, Cochrane CENTRAL Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Review Group; Advisory Board Member, Cochrane Methodology Review Group; Convenor, Prospective Meta-Analysis 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) Cure Cancer Australia; (ii) National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); (iii) Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (Australia); (iv) National Breast Cancer Centre (Australia).

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an 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 NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney.

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.

7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Adrian Grant, Co-ordinating Editor Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Co-ordinating Editor liaison with the Monitoring and Registration Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Incontinence Review Group; Author, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group; Author, Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group; Author, Cochrane Renal Review Group; 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: UK NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment Programme; UK Medical Research Council; BUPA Foundation; UK NHS R&D Service Delivery and Organisation Programme; Scottish Higher Education Funding Council; UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. I have received no research funding from commercial organisations. However, SHIRE Pharmaceuticals and NYCOMED supplied, free of charge, vitamin D, calcium and placebo tablets for a MRC funded clinical trial in the UK of which I was the chief investigator.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: a single payment from Ethicon Endosurgery for attendance at a meeting to discuss possible research collaboration not pursued.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Sally Green, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director, Australasian Cochrane Centre; Co-Convenor, Monitoring and Registration Group, Quality Advisory Group, and Handbook Advisory Group; Author, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
No. All my research grants are from Government competitive research granting bodies; I have no commercial research contracts.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
No: I only consult the Australian federal government.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation?
Yes: I am the sole director of a private physiotherapy practice in Melbourne, Australia. 5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Steff Lewis, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Convenor, Steering Group Executive; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Editor, Cochrane Stroke Review Group; Co-Convenor, Statistical Methods Group:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I am a statistician based in a clinical trials unit in Scotland, UK. As part of this role, I am the trial statistician for a clinical trial funded by PPP Healthcare Medical Trust, but with some active drug and placebo supplied by Boehringer Ingelheim free of charge. I am the trial statistician for a trial funded by Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland and the Medical Research Council, but with medical devices provided free of charge by Tycohealthcare. I am also the trial statistician for a trial funded by Microvention Inc. of Aliejo Viejo California who make the hydrocoils being assessed in the trial. I have no control over the account that my salary is paid from, and other than what is listed above, if any of the money in it is from commercial sources, I am unaware of it.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest?
I am paid by the Cochrane Stroke Group for one day per week as statistical editor.

Jim Neilson, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Convenor, Steering Group Executive; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group; Peer Reviewer, Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Review Group; Member, Handbook Advisory Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I have received no research funding in the last five years from commercial organizations, although Pfizer has supplied, free of charge, azythromycin and placebo tablets, for a Wellcome Trust funded clinical trial in Malawi in which I am co-principal investigator. I have received research funding from the Medical Research Council (UK), NHS National Research & Development Programme, the Health Technology Assessment Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the World Health Organization.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
I have received remuneration for expert advice in medico-legal cases, usually involving claims about cerebral palsy.
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.

Jordi Pardo Pardo, Centre Staff Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Administrator, Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group:

A. Financial interests
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
Yes: I am employed full-time by the Fundación de Gestió Sanitària de l'Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, a not-for-profit charity, and I devote all my time to the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre. The Centre receives support from several sources, including pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the Centre's module in The Cochrane Library and on the Centre's website (www.cochrane.es).
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have received a one-off payment from an editorial company for assessing an evidence-based nursing distance learning training.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Rob Scholten, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Co-Convenor, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Information Management System Group; Member, Statistical Methods Group, and Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author, Cochrane Back, Dementia and Cognitive Improvement, Depression Anxiety and Neurosis, Heart, and Neuromuscular Disease Review Groups:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No. 4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Peter Tugwell, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Feedback Management Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Janet Wale, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Quality Advisory Group; freelance editor and consumer representative on Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australian health committees; consumer for the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Musculoskeletal, Musculoskeletal Injuries, and Heart Review Groups:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Elizabeth Waters, Field Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Steering Group Executive; Steering Group representative, Quality Advisory Group; Director, Health Promotion and Public Health Field; Member, Child Health Field Advisory Board; Member, Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Heart, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Airways, and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Groups:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an 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.

Narelle Willis, Cochrane Review Group Representative (of Review Group Co-ordinators and Trials Search Co-ordinators), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Hepato-Biliary Review Group, External Referee, Hepato-Biliary Review Group; Member, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group; Author, Cochrane Renal Review Group; Member, Working Party for Cochrane Review Groups Procedures Collection:

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation?
No: I am an employee of The Childrens Hospital at Westmead and Associated Academic Staff with the School of Public Health, The University of Sydney.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Hans van der Wouden, Representative of all members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Member, Airways Group, ENT Group, Skin 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: as an employee of Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, I have received research funding from two farmaceutical companies: GlaxoSmithKline and ARTU Biologicals.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
Yes, as a reviewer of papers for the BMJ I received several vouchers of 50 GBP from the BMJ Publishing Group.
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 1623.16 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, Copenhagen, Denmark, as Director of the Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System. My employment is permanent but Rigshospitalet can change my position. Rigshospitalet provides my only source of income. I am also a Director of the Collaboration Trading Company.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? If yes, list.
I have been given, and continue to hold, shares in a small Danish biotechnology company. I’m not able to trade in these and do not receive any income from them. I will not influence the conduct of any review in which this company might have a financial interest.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? If yes, list. No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? If yes, list. No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? If yes, list. No.

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? If yes, explain. No.

* * * * *

Staff of the Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat

Nick Royle, Chief Executive Officer, The Cochrane Collaboration; Member, Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group:Peer Reviewer, Drugs and Alcohol 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 an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Jini Hetherington, Administrator and Company Secretary, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat; Member, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group:
A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation? No.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Claire Allen, Deputy Administrator, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat; Consumer (commenting on protocols and reviews) with the Cochrane Ear, Nose & Throat, Peripheral Vascular Diseases, Airways, and Acute Respiratory Infections Review Groups; Member of the Complementary Medicine Field Advisory Board; author in the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group; Consumer on a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture for migraine funded by the NHS; consumer on the NHS Priorities Project for Complementary Therapies for Cancer funded by the NHS, and on the Guidelines Group for Perioperative Fasting funded by the Royal College of Nursing and the Healthcare Foundation:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an organisation?
Yes: From The Royal College of Nursing, to produce a patient guideline leaflet for perioperative fasting.
3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.
4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No.
5. Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control over the selection of the shares)? No.
6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? No.
7. Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? No.
8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? No.
B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? No.

Diana Wyatt, Secretary/Administrative Assistant, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat:

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:
1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.
2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an 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.