Minutes of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting,
Vellore, India,

11-13 April 2008

[These minutes were approved on 10 June 2008.
Post hoc notes to items 29.1.2.1 and 29.3 were approved on 6 October 2008.]

Subject	Item no.
Advisory Group budget requests for 2008-09	29.3
Cash flow forecast	29.1.2
CENTRAL Request For Proposals (RFP)	8
Chief Executive Officer’s report	4
Co-Chair nomination	23
Co-Chairs, election and working arrangements of Steering Group	24
Cochrane Library, publication of The (Wiley-Blackwell report)	12.1
Cochrane Opportunities Fund	31
Collaboration review in 2008, remit of the	18
Colloquia, the next two	28
Colloquium 2010 in Keystone	19
Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) second progress report	10.4
Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) request for extension of funding	10.5
Co-ordinating Editors’ board, proposal to establish a	5; 29.1.2.1
Copy Edit Support	12.3
Declarations of interest	2
Discretionary Fund expenditure	33
DTA editorial board, proposal for the formation of a	10.2
DTA register of reports: third progress report	11
DTA register proposal for continued funding from 2009 to 2011	10.3
DTA reviews: overview on status	10
DTA reviews: support for Cochrane Review Groups in North America	10.6
Duodecim proposal for an EBM decision support system	14
Editor-in-Chief, Proposal to establish the position of	5; 29.1.2.1
Editorial Management Advisory Group, Responsibility and accountability	25
Entity representatives, reports from	26
Environmental sustainability	39
Feedback Management Advisory Group	34.1
Fields/Networks, registering discipline-based or profession-based	21
Financial position and cash flow forecast	29
Five-year review of the Steering Group, responses to the	16
Funding, Cochrane Collaboration: principles and mechanisms of core	30
Funds, Allocation to specific proposals	36
Handbook, implementing the updated: skill building and resource development	6
Impact factor [of Cochrane reviews]	12.2
Information Management System: status, workflow report and budget request	7
Key performance data	17
Keystone: revisiting the decision to hold the 2010 Colloquium in	19
Nursing Care Network, application for registration of a Cochrane	22
Opportunities Fund	31
Plain language summaries (in DTA reviews)	10.1
Project Support and Business Communications Officer	4
Publication of The Cochrane Library (Wiley-Blackwell report)	12
Rapid response prioritization team	9
Review of the Collaboration in 2008, remit of the	18
Review of the Steering Group in 2006, responses to the	16
RevMan 5 rollout	7.1
Secretariat budget for 2008-2009	29.2
Spreadsheet of outstanding action items	35
Steering Group Co-Chairs, election and working arrangements	24
Steering Group review in 2006, responses to the	16
Steering Group meetings, the next three	27
Steering Group members’ declarations of interest	2
Strategic discussion, decisions arising from the half-day	13
Strategic priorities, reviewing	15
Sub- and Advisory Group budget requests for 2008-09	29.3
Succession planning	34.2
Trading Company Directors	32
Training, skill building and resource development for; implementing updated Handbook	6
Treasurer’s report	29
WHO, Proposal to establish the Collaboration as an NGO in official relations with	20
Wiley report	12.1

Minutes of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting

Vellore, India, 11-13 April 2008

[These minutes were approved on 10 June 2008.]

Present: Lorne Becker (Co-Chair), Lisa Bero, Jonathan Craig, Jon Deeks, Zbys Fedorowicz, Ruth Foxlee, Paul Garner (for item 5 only), Donna Gillies (Treasurer), Adrian Grant (Co-Chair), Sally Green, Jeremy Grimshaw (for item 18 only), Jini Hetherington (Company Secretary, minutes), Monica Kjeldstrøm (IMS Director and Trading Company Director), Joy Oliver, Andy Oxman (for item 5 only), Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (John Wiley & Sons, for items 12, 13 and 14 only), Nick Royle (CEO), Rob Scholten, Peter Tugwell, Janet Wale, Liz Whamond, Katrina Williams, Narelle Willis and Hans van der Wouden.

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

Lorne welcomed everyone to the meeting; there had been no apologies. The agenda was approved.

2 Steering Group members’ declarations of interest

Monica pointed out that there were internal conflicts of interest among participants at this meeting about certain agenda items. It was suggested that the discussion of each item should commence by people declaring their interests, both non-financial and financial, and that these declarations should be recorded in the minutes under the individual items. This was not done consistently throughout the meeting, however.

3 Introduction from the Co-Chairs

Adrian referred to the important and significant issues on the agenda of this meeting. Lorne drew attention to the continuing need to link agenda items to the Strategic Plan. He outlined the order in which the agenda would be dealt with.

4 Chief Executive Officer’s report
Nick said that a major focus during the past six months had been the terms of the extension of the contract with Wiley-Blackwell for the next five years. This contract had now been signed. He pointed out the slow-down in subscription growth but the larger share in revenue from royalties. He reminded the Steering Group that Wiley-Blackwell is the exclusive publisher of Cochrane reviews, and has first option on derivative products. Nick advised that interviews had recently taken place to fill the position of Project Support and Business Communications Officer in the Secretariat, in furtherance of the recommendations of the recent Steering Group review; the successful candidate would take up the post on 1 July 2008.

5 Proposal to establish the position of Editor-in-Chief and a Co-ordinating Editors’ board for The Cochrane Collaboration

Paul Garner and Andy Oxman participated in the meeting for this item. Andy reminded everyone that the proposal to establish a Co-ordinating Editors’ board within the Collaboration dated back to 2004 when the Co-ordinating Editors had met and formed an executive, having as its major focus the quality and up-to-datedness of Cochrane reviews. Andy also reminded everyone that a joint meeting had been held between the Steering Group and the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive in Amsterdam in April 2007, and that the Co-ordinating Editors had discussed the functions, structure and governance of the proposed board in São Paulo in October 2007. A consultation document had then been circulated, and 45 of the then 51 Review Groups had been represented at a meeting in London, England, in January 2008 where the proposal to establish a board with an editor-in-chief was endorsed. Andy then made a PowerPoint presentation to the Steering Group of the key recommendations from the recent meeting of the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive (see Appendix to these minutes). His presentation also addressed some of the concerns that had been expressed surrounding this proposal. An incremental approach would need to be taken, with the position of Editor-in-Chief and the responsibilities of the board evolving over time. It was suggested that the appointment of the Editor-in-Chief would initially be for a three-year term. The risks of not approving this proposal were also addressed. The importance was stressed of establishing both a board of the co-ordinating editors (as the mechanism for improving working practices amongst Co-ordinating Editors) as well as an Editor-in-Chief. Paul addressed the credibility issue, and how to improve the quality of reviews continually and meet minimum standards across Review Groups. He said it was a major milestone that the Co-ordinating Editors were now working together as a group, and had agreed with the need to have someone in charge who would work closely with the Steering Group. Andy was thanked for his presentation and asked to make it available as an Appendix to these minutes.

Jon and Sally had circulated a document to the Steering Group and the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive before the meeting that outlined the concerns of Methods Groups and the Handbook Advisory Group with the tabled paper. They had discussed the issues raised with the Co-ordinating Editors at an earlier meeting, and brought forward a proposal to include in the new editorial structure a group in which representatives of Methods Groups and the Handbook Advisory Group could meet regularly with representatives of Review Groups, to discuss and work together on matters to improve review quality. Jon and Jonathan proposed bringing a paper to the Steering Group Executive to formalise this working team with a request for funds to meet. Sally thanked the Co-ordinating Editors for the massive amount of work that had gone into this proposal.
Action: Jon, Jonathan

The recommendations in the proposal were then considered.

Recommendation 2, the establishment of the post of and an office staff for the Editor-in-Chief was unanimously accepted. The Editor-in-Chief would report to the CCSG. This would be a senior appointment, to whom Co-ordinating Editors through their Board (see below) would be accountable, with the post having wider strategic responsibilities for editorial aspects of The Cochrane Library and related products. It was agreed that funding for the Editor-in-Chief and the office of the Editor-in-Chief (Recommendation 3) was a very high priority. A process was outlined by which the position should be filled (Recommendation 4), a clear view of where that person would stand, formation of the selection panel, and the remit of the position. Nick would take this forward with the help of Peter and others. The Steering Group would determine the membership of the selection panel. It was proposed that there should be a maximum of eight people on the selection panel, with representation from key stakeholders (one or both Co-Chairs, entity representatives, two Co-ordinating Editors, and an external experienced editor). It might also be useful to include a member of the CEO’s appointment panel. It was agreed that equity on the selection panel was important, as well as Methods Group representation. The Steering Group approved the engagement of a recruitment consultant to facilitate recruitment to this position. Nick was asked to investigate a firm undertaking this on a pro bono basis as the Collaboration is a charity; he would consult with our publishers but they should not be involved in funding this position. Nick would bring a report on progress to the next Executive meeting.
Action: Nick

Recommendation 1, the establishment of a Board of Co-ordinating Editors was also agreed unanimously, as was the timeline for this, proposed on page 11 of the background document. However, the name originally proposed ‘editorial board’ should be revised: ‘Co-ordinating Editors’ board’ was considered to be a more appropriate title. The Steering Group agreed that it was comfortable with the proposed structure of the board, its remit and its representation in the Steering Group through its two elected members (recommendations 5, 6 and 7), subject to the revisions Andy had made in his presentation. However, it was agreed (see above) that the Editor-in-Chief would be a senior appointment providing explicit leadership to the Board. Nick was asked to take the establishment of the Board forward with Peter and Jonathan, the two Co-ordinating Editors on the Steering Group, in consultation with the project group (Paul Garner, Sophie Hill and Andy Oxman), and to modify the table in the background paper to reflect three separate areas of responsibility: those of the Steering Group, those of the Co-ordinating Editors, and those of the project group. The table should be headed ‘Plan for implementation of the Co-ordinating Editors’ board’.

Action: Jonathan, Nick, Peter

It was acknowledged that these developments would have significant consequences for some other parts of the Collaboration, such as the Steering Group’s various advisory groups; this would need to be monitored carefully and constructively. Adrian thanked Paul Garner, Sophie Hill and Andy Oxman for all their hard work in developing this proposal, as well as Jonathan and Peter. It was agreed that this was a major initiative for the Collaboration, and in the highest category of initiatives that should receive core funding.

6 Implementing the updated Cochrane Handbook: Skill building and resource development for training
Nick explained that Sally had been asked to work with others to develop a long-term training strategy for the Collaboration, meeting the challenges of training in the new and updated methods in Version 5 of The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sally and Julian Higgins therefore proposed convening a three-day meeting of trainers within the Collaboration, in Cambridge, UK, with participation from Cochrane authors, members of Review Groups, Centres and Methods Groups (those involved in producing the three new chapters in the Handbook, the Co-ordinating Editors’ board, and the Handbook Advisory Group). Aims of the meeting would include training of trainers, identification of the required training resources, and planning for the implementation of training across the Collaboration. Peter explained that Co-ordinating Editors strongly welcomed this initiative. Monica requested that members of the IMS Support Team be invited to attend this meeting, and this was approved. Nick had estimated the cost of a three-day meeting of 25 people at about 16.5K GBP, and this budget was approved. Jon explained that the provision of separate training in diagnostic test accuracy reviews would be discussed at this meeting. The newly appointed Project Support and Business Communications Officer in the Secretariat would be closely involved in supporting this initiative. It should be reinforced at the meeting that training is a core function of Centres. Peter stressed the need for more training to be available within the Collaboration, outside of that delivered by Centres; Sally was asked to investigate broadening the cascade approach, to develop a strategy for sophisticated methodological training for the Collaboration. Nick strongly suggested that the current approach of moving trainers and students geographically to deliver and attend training events was environmentally unsustainable, wasteful of resources, and limited the opportunities for training to certain times and places. He suggested that the Collaboration’s initiatives to develop and expand web-based training should be emphasised at the Cambridge meeting, and that this should be a core part of any training programme(s). He and Sally agreed to collaborate on a discussion paper on e-learning for the training meeting, which was approved.
Action: Nick, Sally

7 Information Management System (IMS):

7.1 IMS status report: Monica reported that the RevMan 5 software was now being rolled out and it was going well. She drew attention to some staff changes within the IMS development team. She and her team were congratulated for doing an extraordinary job in rolling out this software: it had been said that this improved software was a quantum leap for the Collaboration. As described in the IMS report, the IMS development team is involved in working on a web-based data extraction tool (enabled by a grant to the University of Berne), which would help review authors to manage the process of literature screening, reaching consensus on eligibility of trials and data extraction from included trials. Once completed, the software would be offered freely to The Cochrane Collaboration. Nick said that the Collaboration would need to enter into a licensing agreement with the licence holders of this software, in the same way as had been done for the IMS, RevMan and GradePro software packages. Monica agreed to raise this with the project members.
Action: Monica, Nick

7.2 IMS workflow and tracking component: Monica apologised for circulating this background document, and one on the reports available in Archie, by e-mail after the agenda material had been distributed to the Steering Group. The Steering Group confirmed the decision it had made during its meeting in October 2007 that the workflow and tracking system should be adopted by all Review Groups once it was working smoothly.

7.3 IMS budget April 2008 to March 2012: Following the Steering Group meeting in October 2007, at which Monica had highlighted the need for an expansion of the IMS team resources, she introduced the proposed new IMS budget from April 2008 to March 2012. Monica acknowledged the invaluable contribution of many volunteers across the Collaboration, and the substantial financial contributions of both the Nordic Cochrane Centre and The Cochrane Collaboration that had already gone into the development of the new IMS – a process that had started in 2002 following the results of the Collaboration-wide software needs assessment survey. The proposed new budget included an increase from the current 5.3 FTE to 8 FTE for the IMS Development team and an increase from 1.4 FTE to 1.8 FTE for the IMS Support team. The expanded IMS Development team would be responsible for operation, core development (including completion of the workflow system in 2008) and maintenance. The increase should be seen in light of the increasing user base and IMS’ crucial role in supporting the preparation and publishing of Cochrane reviews. Monica stressed the importance of having a critical mass to ensure that the system is based on a solid foundation that operates reliably, and the IMS team is resourced to respond to important requests for changes and to provide technical troubleshooting to the growing number of RevMan 5 users in particular. Peter Gøtzsche had advised that the Nordic Cochrane Centre (NCC) would continue to contribute the salary for 2.5 FTE for the IMS Development team until the end of March 2009; after this (from April 2009), due to a cut in its core budget, the NCC would continue to contribute 1.5 FTE to the development as well as cover the infrastructure cost for the full IMS Development team. In concluding her presentation and acknowledging the size of the proposed new budget, Monica said that the IMS team would welcome an independent timely evaluation of the IMS to help the Steering Group to assess the value of the IMS before making any firm decisions.

In discussion after Monica left the room, some members of the Steering Group felt that they did not possess sufficient technical knowledge to assess whether the budget request was reasonable. The IMS development team should be strongly congratulated and thanked for RevMan 5, and told that the Steering Group was keen to support them; however, it had some uncertainties about the level of funding being requested. After lengthy consideration of the proposal, maintenance of funding at the current level was agreed to for one additional year, until the end of March 2010, with an increase of The Cochrane Collaboration’s contribution from April 2009 to March 2010 to cover the cut in the budget of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, raising the Collaboration’s contribution from 112,585 to 176,019 GBP (including allowance for currency fluctuations). It was also agreed to increase the budget for the IMS Support team from 1.4 to 1.8 FTE, raising the Collaboration’s contribution from 57,500 to 65,000 GBP. The total amount of additional funding approved was 70,934 GBP. It was agreed that Lorne and Nick would engage an independent consultant with experience in the editorial and publishing software field to examine our current approach to software development, bearing in mind developments in comparable products since the original IMS funding decision had been made in 2003, to ensure that we were taking a technologically appropriate and cost-effective approach, within the context of where the rest of the publishing industry was in regard to software systems. The consultant should be expected to make recommendations on the type of system we might use for editorial management software (comparable with the IMS, which includes contact management, content/document management, workflow and tracking and RevMan) and on the level of resources we should be committing, presenting different options for the future.

Action: Lorne, Nick

8 CENTRAL - Request for Proposals (RFP)Monica declared a conflict of interest in this proposal. Ruth explained that there was a great deal of enthusiasm among Trials Search Co-ordinators for the proposed way forward. The Steering Group agreed to put out the RFP in a general tender exercise open to all bidders, prioritising the essentials and desirables within the user requirement section before doing so. The sentence, “We ‘may’ have technical expertise on the review team” should read “will”. It was agreed that the IMS team would need to be involved in discussions with any provider to ensure that compatibility issues were addressed.
Action: Monica, Nick, Ruth

9 Rapid response prioritization team
Lorne asked for consideration of this item to be deferred until the Collaboration had a Co-ordinating Editors’ board, who should be asked to take forward the suggestion of having a rapid response team to prepare high priority reviews very quickly. This matter should be revisited at the next Steering Group meeting in Freiburg in October 2008, when Nick would be providing a status report on the projects that had been funded by the Prioritisation Fund. This suggestion could be considered by the small working group which had recently been set up to discuss the impact factor of Cochrane reviews.
Action: Nick

10 Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews - overview on status, and papers on the DTA initiative:

Jon explained the background to the work plan for DTA reviews. He said that these types of reviews required different skills and statistical expertise. This initiative was drawing new people into the Collaboration. It was agreed that our existing product, CDSR, needed added value, which DTA reviews would bring.

10.1 Plain language summaries (PLS): It was agreed that, for now, DTA reviews should have no PLS initially because no format, guidance or service were currently available for producing PLS for DTA reviews and because it was anticipated that there was at present a paucity of experience within the Cochrane Consumer Network (CCN) that would allow members to prepare PLS of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy research. Janet agreed that DTA reviews should not have PLS at present, since they would each have a well constructed abstract. The way they were rendered by Wiley should not indicate that the PLS was missing. A process should be established to look at the requirements for PLS, and the group (comprising the DTA initiative, a representative from the CCN and Wiley) should come back to the Steering Group with proposals. The implications for RevMan and Archie should also be considered. Nick pointed out that the DTA Continental Europe Support Unit work plan included development of PLS for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews, and Janet, Jon and Rob agreed to explore this further.
Action: Janet, Jon, Monica, Rob

10.2 Proposal for the formation of a DTA editorial board: Jon explained that each DTA review would be signed off at the protocol and review stage by the working group to indicate that the methodological content was accurate; this process might not be needed indefinitely. The Steering Group asked for this working group to identify options for alternative names to ‘editorial board’, and suggest them to the Publishing Policy Group, together with suggestions for the appointment process to the group. The Steering Group thanked the working group for their progress on this initiative. They were asked to start thinking of a working model and how this might fit with the new Editor-in-Chief and Co-ordinating Editors’ board. The requested budget of 250 GBP for working group teleconferences was approved.
Action: Jon

10.3 Proposal for continued funding of DTA Register from 2009 to 2011: Rob, Jon, Jonathan and Narelle declared an interest in this item and left the room for the discussion about funding. Sally declared an interest as a member of the Renal Group’s advisory board but did not feel conflicted in discussing funding. Nick also declared an interest, as a member of the DTA working group. After discussion, it was agreed to fund one of the two requested Information Scientist posts over three years (77,830 AUD per year). If the applicants chose to adjust the funding so that they concentrated spending in the first year, that was their choice, on condition that they gave first attention to the production of Cochrane DTA reviews by supporting authors and Review Groups. In the light of the reduced funding, they would need to reduce their work plan, particularly with regard to downloading all records indexed in MEDLINE with ‘Sensitivity and specificity’ for the years 1997 to 2006. Seeking funding from alternative sources was strongly encouraged. Lorne agreed to relay the decision to the applicants.
Action: Lorne

10.4 Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) - Second progress report:
This report was acknowledged with appreciation.

10.5 Continental Europe Support Unit - Request for extension of funding: Rob declared his interest in this item, and left the room for the decision about funding, as did Jon and Jonathan. Beforehand, Rob reported that this two-year project was on schedule overall. He reported that Review Groups were relieved that assistance with DTA reviews was available to them. He was seeking continued support and intensified training and support to Review Groups for the next three years. It was agreed to provide funding of 49K Euros for one additional year, building in a review at the Steering Group meeting during the Freiburg Colloquium or the mid-year meeting in 2009 in Copenhagen with regard to worldwide support. The list of deliverables, however, would have to be reconsidered by the CESU team. Joy abstained from voting on this decision.
Action: Rob

10.6 DTA reviews - Support for Cochrane Review Groups in North America: This was discussed and agreed to be in need of attention. The DTA working group would consider models for provision of support and bring forward proposals in the near future.
Action: Jon

11 DTA register - third progress report

This item was for information only. Thanks were expressed to Ruth Mitchell for her report and her hard work in this area.

12 Publication of The Cochrane Library

12.1 Wiley report: Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert presented her six-monthly report to the Steering Group on behalf of John Wiley and Sons. She expanded on the information she had provided in her background document, and in her PowerPoint presentation earlier in the day to the joint meeting of the Centre Directors, Co-ordinating Editors’ executive and the Steering Group. Deborah confirmed that users were more interested in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews than any of the other databases in The Cochrane Library. She agreed to re-circulate a couple of graphs to the Steering Group after updating them, and reiterated that the data she had presented were commercially sensitive and should remain confidential to the Steering Group. Nick updated everyone on the status of the EU petition for European Union-wide access to The Cochrane Library, which had been organised by an independent group, the EU Alliance for Dissemination of Evidence (EU-ADE). It was understood that the members of this group would be using the e-petition’s nearly 12,000 signatures to lobby the European Commission for an EU-wide access licence.
Action: Deborah

12.2 Impact factor: Some disappointment was expressed with the level of the estimated impact factor in June 2008. Deborah asked for advice on the strategy for communicating this to authors and other stakeholders. Monica pointed out that incorrect citations could be corrected, which would possibly help to raise the impact factor. There was lengthy discussion of the need for, the difficulties of, and the importance of, raising the impact factor. Nick emphasised that the solution lay largely within the hands of the Collaboration’s members, and it was agreed to establish a communication working group comprising Sally, Lisa and Jon, working with Deborah and bringing in appropriate expertise from Collaboration members other than the Steering Group. An implementation working group was also established, comprising Hans, Jonathan, Nick and Peter, with input from Deborah. Both working groups would report to the Publishing Policy Group.
Action: Deborah, Hans, Jon, Jonathan, Lisa, Nick, Peter, Sally

12.3 Copy Edit Support: Nancy Owens’ report on the current status of Copy Edit Support and future plans was gratefully acknowledged. It was noted that when the Collaboration eventually moved to continuous publication of The Cochrane Library, this would obviate some of the pressures of quarterly copy editing of Cochrane reviews, but the Steering Group emphasised its intention to move towards mandatory centralised copy-editing of all new and ‘substantively updated’ reviews at the earliest opportunity.

13 Decisions arising from the half-day strategic discussion between the Steering Group, Centre Directors and Co-ordinating Editors’ executive
Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert participated in the meeting for discussion of this item, but left the meeting before any decisions were taken. It was agreed that the half-day discussion of the Collaboration’s future positioning in respect of its products had been useful and productive. Summaries by Nick and Lorne were distributed on paper, to promote discussion. Deborah was asked to put together some concrete proposals to bring back to the Steering Group, liaising with Katrina and Peter; other names were suggested of people who might be approached for their input.
Action: Deborah, Katrina, Peter

14 Duodecim proposal for an EBM decision support system

Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert participated in the meeting for this item. It was agreed that accepting this proposal would provide the basis on which to make future decisions about similar partnerships. It was agreed to investigate participating in Duodecim pilot projects which were already underway. The scripts could be peer reviewed, and/or a member of the Collaboration could sit on the editorial board, or other models could be explored. The Publishing Policy Group was asked to discuss this proposal in more detail during their face-to-face meeting on 5 and 6 June in Chichester, UK.
Action: Lorne

15 Reviewing strategic priorities

Nick explained that the task of ranking the Collaboration’s strategic priorities would now be suspended until after the review of the Collaboration currently being led by Jeremy Grimshaw.

16 Responses to the 2006 review of the Steering Group

Lorne said that this item was for information only. He would continue to update the document summarising the Steering Group’s responses to the 2006 review, for successive Steering Group meetings.
Action: Lorne

17 Key performance data

Rob agreed to prepare a discussion document for the next Steering Group meeting in Freiburg in October 2008, providing data on the timeliness of reviews, the number of studies per review, the number of studies published over time, and identifying those entities which might be struggling to produce reviews. Lorne would continue to work on the key performance data initiative with the small team formed at the previous meeting, informed by Rob’s work.
Action: Rob, Lorne

18 Remit of The Cochrane Collaboration review
Jeremy Grimshaw participated in the meeting for discussion of this item. He opened by saying that he was seeking approval for the proposed remit, and the major issues that should be covered by the review of the Collaboration. Managing expectations was going to be a challenge: this review was not going to resolve all issues within the Collaboration. It would provide a lens for the Steering Group to identify issues needing to be addressed, and how the Collaboration might need to be developed in order to move forward. Jeremy was planning to address four to six major challenges, and to propose strategies for implementation of the recommendations of the review. He would seek input from internal and external stakeholders as outlined in the remit document. He would also be speaking to the staff of the Secretariat. Jeremy and Nick would be discussing the breadth of the review with independent consultants in a few days’ time. Particular issues would be discussed with the Executive of the Steering Group, so as not to take on more than could be accomplished in the given time. By the time of the Freiburg Colloquium Jeremy would be able to provide more information, and a full report would be ready for the mid-year meetings in Copenhagen in April 2009. The report should be realistic about the challenges, but present a very positive view of the future, particularly a positive implementation strategy, and transparency about how we do things. Nick explained that Jeremy would be employing someone to work with him on this review. He would continue to join the monthly teleconferences of the Executive, and Nick himself would continue to support him. Nick would circulate to the Steering Group a breakdown of how the approved budget for this initiative would be spent, when the information became available. £75K had been approved for this review. An additional £50K for external consultants was approved. The Steering Group should carve out additional time to implement the findings of the report of the review, which might result in amendments to the Strategic Plan.
Action: Nick

19 Keystone: Revisiting the decision to hold 2010 Colloquium there

Lisa pointed out that the background paper did not address preventive strategies, such as spending a night beforehand in Denver, which would decrease the possible symptoms. The background references and a review of the literature showed that some people would suffer altitude sickness, but that there were preventive strategies, and absolute risk was difficult to determine. It was agreed that it was high time to hold a Colloquium in the United States, and the Keystone location was economically attractive. A deposit of 10K USD would be forfeited if the booking was cancelled; however, nothing had changed since the Steering Group had originally considered the issue very carefully. Some members had concerns but the overwhelming counter-argument was that the Colloquium needed to be held in the States, there weren’t any other offers to host the event, nor were there likely to be any other suitable venues available in the States in October 2010. The decision was therefore reaffirmed to hold the 2010 Colloquium in Keystone, and to provide good information as to the risks of altitude sickness and the preventive measures that could be taken. Nick would ask the organisers to recommend suitable hotel accommodation in Denver for the preceding night, and to provide information on suitable forms of transport for travelling to Keystone. He would let Bob Dellavalle know that this had been a difficult decision for the Steering Group, and seek his support in implementing it.
Action: Nick

20 Proposal to establish The Cochrane Collaboration as a non-governmental organization (NGO) in official relations with the World Health Organization (WHO)

Lisa explained that WHO was already working with different Cochrane groups. This was an attempt to formalise the relationship, the main goal being to establish a small group to work with WHO to develop a more formal relationship. Other organisations had said that it could be difficult to determine whom to contact within the Collaboration; a working group would provide a focus for WHO to liaise with our organisation more effectively. The Collaboration could have a formal voice within WHO by having a member on its Health Council. It was agreed that it would be important not to raise false expectations within either the Collaboration or WHO. The proposal to establish a small working group was accepted. Lisa and Janet volunteered to join the group. It was hoped that Davina Ghersi and Metin Gülmezoglu, who with Lisa had made the proposal, would agree to be members of the group.
Action: Janet, Lisa, Lorne

21 Registering discipline-based or profession-based Fields/Networks
There was lengthy discussion of this issue. The Steering Group voted to approve the principle of registration of discipline-based or profession-based Fields. As with any other proposal for registration, the suitability of a proposal for a discipline-based entity would be assessed on a case by case basis. Peter abstained from voting. Rob would communicate this decision to the Monitoring and Registration Group, and ensure that the text in the Cochrane Manual was brought up to date.
Action: Rob

22 Application for registration of a Cochrane Nursing Care Network

Sally declared her conflict of interest in this matter, as the Director of the applicants’ reference Cochrane Centre, and left the room. Ruth also declared her conflict of interest as a named author on the response to the application for registration, but did not leave the room. In principle there was no reason why an application to establish a Nursing Care Network could not be considered, but the degree of conflict surrounding this was so great that the Ombudsmen should be asked to mediate future discussions. There was such significant divergence of views, both within the Monitoring and Registration Group and the Steering Group, that this application could not be progressed without an attempt to resolve the conflict. Adrian agreed to ask Peter Langhorne to become involved in his role as one of the two Ombudsmen, and to ask him to talk to the relevant Co-ordinating Editors and Review Group Co-ordinators. Rob should let the applicants know the outcome of this discussion. Timing was an issue, and Nick was asked to clarify whether funding was dependent on this decision.
Action: Adrian, Nick, Rob

23 Co-Chair nomination

Adrian chaired the discussion of this item, for which Lorne left the room. There was unanimous support for Lorne to be re-elected as Co-Chair for a second two-year term, from October 2008 to October 2010. He returned to the meeting, accepted this role, and was thanked for doing so.

24 Election and working arrangements of Steering Group Co-Chairs

It was agreed to defer discussion of the current model of having two Co-Chairs pending the appointment of the Editor-in-Chief. Jeremy Grimshaw would be considering these issues in his review of the Collaboration. Adrian agreed to establish a small working group to develop the options of procedures for electing Co-Chairs, and circulate them to the Steering Group via the Executive, for eventual discussion in Freiburg, with advice from Nick (bearing in mind that he is accountable to the Co-Chairs), and after obtaining external advice.
Action: Adrian

25 Editorial Management Advisory Group (EMAG) responsibility and accountability

The reporting arrangements for the EMAG should remain as they are currently, until an Editor-in-Chief is in post. Jonathan, Narelle and Peter agreed to work with the Convenor of EMAG to foster communication between the EMAG, the Steering Group and the Co-ordinating Editors’ board in the interim.
Action: Jonathan, Narelle, Peter

26 Reports from entity representatives

No items additional to those already on the agenda were raised for discussion by any of the representatives of Review Groups, Methods Groups, Fields/Networks or Centres.

27 The next three Steering Group meetings:

27.1 Freiburg - 2 and 6 October 2008: Steering Group members were asked to note that their second meeting on 6 October was scheduled to take place from 11.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. The Steering Group would therefore have to forego the sporting event on the free afternoon.

27.2 Copenhagen - 24-26 April 2009: Nothing to discuss.

27.3 Singapore - 10 and ? October 2009: Nothing to discuss.

28 The next two Cochrane Colloquia:

28.1 Freiburg, 3-7 October 2008: Nothing to discuss.

28.2 Singapore, 11-14 October 2009: Nothing to discuss.

29 Treasurer’s report on financial and legal matters:

29.1 29.1.1 Current financial position: Donna spoke to the spreadsheets of the Collaboration’s current financial position. It was agreed that any anomalies on the spreadsheets should be explained by footnotes in future. It was clarified that decisions about funding should be made on the basis of the figures in the cash flow forecast rather than on the Profit and Loss statements. Also, Donna should look into the feasibility of a combined Charity and Trading Company spreadsheet being provided by the Collaboration’s bookkeeper, so that Steering Group members could see the overall financial position more readily. This matter should be on the agenda of the next Executive teleconference, after Donna had consulted with the Trading Company Directors in case they had additional requests for reporting the Collaboration’s financial position. Nick agreed to ensure that the web development team would provide progress reports for all future Steering Group agendas, as this is such a large line item in the budget.
Action: Donna, Nick

29.1.2 Cash flow forecast: Nick explained that the contingency buffer would need to be raised with the establishment of the position of Editor-in-Chief. Lorne presented a four-year cash flow forecast on screen for the meeting, taking Nick’s document and adding in the cumulative amounts to be spent on the various core functions and projects to the end of 2012. These showed that, although an increase in funding for the IMS had been expected since October 2007, the amount requested was significantly larger than expected. Together with a number of unanticipated requests for additional funds from existing projects, there were insufficient resources to fund all the things being asked for at the present time, at the requested levels. The Steering Group decided that the RFP for CENTRAL should be opened up to external bids. Nick offered to bring a document to the Executive in a couple of months’ time providing some comparators against which the cost-effectiveness of our core spending could be measured. It was agreed to fund the highest priority projects at the levels that had been decided, as described in these minutes (see also item 30).
Action: Nick

29.1.2.1 Proposed budget for Editor-in-Chief: The Steering Group’s message in response to the proposal from the Co-ordinating Editors should be that, “We have agreed that there should be an Editor-in-Chief with an editorial office. We have looked at the budget range suggested, and because of a lot of calls on our budget we hope it will not come in at the upper level, but are working with that as a possible contingency. Decisions about other items on this agenda have been agreed in principle, but the figures will be finalised in the next two months.”
Action: Nick

*Post hoc note: Establishment of the post and related office of the Editor-in-Chief is expected to cost in the region of £360,000 per annum, rising to £400,000 within a few years.

29.2 Secretariat budget for 2008-2009: This budget was approved as submitted. It was agreed that the Collaboration needed to investigate offering a pension scheme, when the number of employees in the Secretariat rose to five in July 2008 with the appointment of the Project Support and Business Communications Officer. This should be reported on by e-mail to the Steering Group, and raised at the next Steering Group meeting in Freiburg if necessary.
Action: Jini

29.3 Sub- and Advisory Group budget requests for 2008-09: It was agreed that there should be a footnote in future to explain any differences between estimated and actual expenditure. The requested budgets of the Steering Group’s sub-groups were approved as follows, for the financial year 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009:
Executive: 4000 GBP
Monitoring and Registration Group: 11,000 GBP

Publishing Policy Group: 8000 GBP
TOTAL: 23,000 GBP for the year 2008-09.

The Advisory Group budgets were approved as follows:

Cochrane Library Users’ Group: 918 GBP
Colloquium Policy Advisory Group: 1495 GBP
Feedback Management Advisory Group: 2000 GBP

Handbook Advisory Group: 2900 GBP

Information Management System Group: 24,580 GBP

Quality Advisory Group: 1000 GBP

TOTAL: 32,893 GBP for the year 2008-09.

Action: Donna, Jini

Post hoc note: It had been pointed out during the meeting that there appeared to be an error on the table of budget requests with regard to the IMSG approved and actual expenditure in the year 2007-08. Jini had been asked to investigate, and discovered that the IMSG had underspent by 6296 GBP rather than overspending by 10,271 GBP. She had apologised to the IMSG Convenor for this error, and been asked in future to circulate the table of advisory group budget requests to all advisory group convenors for checking, before the table of budget requests was presented to the Steering Group.

30 Cochrane Collaboration funding: principles and mechanisms of core funding

Due to rapid developments in the Collaboration’s funding position, it was agreed to defer discussion of this item until the next face-to-face meeting in Freiburg (see also item 29.1.2).
Action: Donna

31 Opportunities Fund

Jon reported on the applications that had been made to the Opportunities Fund. Joy, Katrina and Peter left the room for discussion of the decisions about funding. Five applications had been shortlisted, and it was agreed to fund all five, conditional upon receiving satisfactory responses from the applicants to the outstanding questions that the panel had on each application. It was agreed that the one application which did not meet the Opportunities Fund criteria should not be funded; Jon abstained from voting. Nick was asked to request the incoming Project Support and Business Communications Officer to list the projects that had already been funded in previous Opportunities Funds, and what each had accomplished, for Steering Group discussion in Freiburg, when a decision on the future of this Fund would be made.

Action: Jon, Nick

32 Trading Company Directors
The Directors’ report was gratefully accepted and needed no discussion. The table of key dates for 2008 was acknowledged.

33 Discretionary Fund expenditure

The statement of Discretionary Fund expenditure to date was received without discussion. However, it showed the lack of calls on the Fund during the past year, which entity representatives might wish to highlight to their constituents.
Action: Everyone

34 Matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting held in São Paulo, not already dealt with

There were two matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting:

34.1 Feedback Management Advisory Group: Lisa undertook to liaise with John Carlisle, the FMAG Convenor, about the functioning of this advisory group.

34.2 Succession planning: Adrian reported that the Co-ordinating Editors were working on succession planning, and that the Centre Directors had also formed a sub-group to consider this challenge.

35 Spreadsheet of Steering Group members’ outstanding action items

Members were reminded to let the Secretariat know of their completed action items, so that the spreadsheet could be updated and provide a useful prompt to Steering Group members to complete the tasks they had undertaken.
Action: Everyone

36 Allocation of funds to specific proposals

It was agreed that the decisions made at this meeting regarding the allocation of funds to specific proposals should be disseminated via the next Steering Group Bulletin. Nick would draft this as soon as possible and circulate it to the Steering Group for approval.
Action: Nick

37 Decisions made at this meeting to be communicated to entities
See item 36 above.

38 Content for next Steering Group Bulletin
See item 36 above.

39 Environmental sustainability
The forthcoming training meeting in Cambridge, UK, from 28 to 30 July 2008 would have an environmental impact, as would the provision of online training; also the forthcoming Editorial Management Advisory Group meeting in Oxford, UK, on 29 and 30 May 2008, and the proposed travel budget for the Editor-in-Chief.

40 Any other business:

40.1 Survey of feedback on this meeting: Nick thanked everyone in advance for responding to the survey that he would issue after this meeting. Commenting on the part of the survey about long-distance travel and the effect of this on members’ ability to contribute effectively to the meeting, Nick noted that the consultants on the Collaboration review had written a research paper on the effects of sleep deprivation on business decisions; he would circulate this once it had been published.
Action: Nick

40.2 Consultation about spending the Collaboration’s core funds: Donna expressed concern that this consultation had not yet taken place. This should be addressed in the next Steering Group Bulletin.
Action: Nick

41 Thanks to the hosts and organisers of the meeting

Peter thanked the Co-Chairs for chairing the meeting and dealing with such a large agenda. Hans thanked Jini for taking the minutes, and Nick thanked Claire and Diana in the Secretariat for preparing the agenda materials. On behalf of the whole Steering Group, Lorne expressed grateful thanks to Prathap Tharyan and his colleagues at the South Asian Cochrane Network, and the staff of the Christian Medical College, for hosting such a successful and enjoyable round of meetings in Vellore, for arranging such enjoyable entertainment, and for their wonderful hospitality.

Appendix

Co-ordinating Editors’ Board Proposal

Vellore, 12 April 2008

Andy Oxman’s PowerPoint presentation to the Steering Group

This presentation formed the basis for the Steering Group’s discussion,

and does not necessarily reflect its eventual decisions.
See item 5 of the Steering Group minutes.

Co-ordinating Editors’ Board

•Background

•Recommendations

•Concerns

•Risks

•Work plan

Background

•CoEd Executive - 2004 Ottawa

•Quality report - 2005 Melbourne

•Achieving quality & up-to-date reviews – 2006 Khon Kaen

•CoEds’ Board proposal – 2006 Dublin

•Meeting with CCSG – 2007 Amsterdam

•Functions, structure, governance – 2007 Sao Paulo

•Consultation document circulated – December 2007

•CoEd meeting – January 2008 London

•Proposal revised and submitted – March 2008

Recommendation 1:
Establishment and role of the Cochrane Collaboration Co-ordinating Editors’ Board

That the Cochrane Collaboration Co-ordinating Editors’ Board be established as an advisory group of the CCSG, to advise the CCSG and implement advice affecting the strategic vision of, and review production for, the CDSR.

Main objectives and scope of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board

The Editorial Board will:

•Provide advice [along with others] and implement decisions to improve the quality of reviews and editorial processes within and across review groups;

•In consultation [partnership] with others, develop a long-term strategic vision for improving and developing the CDSR;

•Seek to improve the sustainability of review groups and review production, by identifying and communicating to the relevant entities needs in relation to funding, training and support for authors, editors and bases;

•Improve communication and increase collaboration amongst Co-ordinating Editors, and between Co-ordinating Editors and the CCSG, its key groups, and other entities.

Recommendation 2: Creation of the new position of Editor in Chief

•That the position of Editor in Chief be created, with responsibility for developing, implementing, and directing the editorial policies and vision of the CDSR in relation to the main objectives of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board.

•That the Editor in Chief reports to the CCSG.

Recommendation 3: Funding for Editor in Chief and Office of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board’s Editor in Chief

That the CCSG allocate funding to establish the Editor in Chief position and the Office of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board’s Editor in Chief.

Editor in Chief

•High level position with a commensurate salary

•Someone who is both a hands on leader and a strategic thinker

Not a visionary who does not get things done

Someone who will roll up his/her sleeves and get his/her fingers dirty

Someone with leadership, management and communication skills

Editor in Chief DRAFT job description

Developing and implementing a strategic vision

•Working with the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board and other relevant groups to develop policies for the strategic direction for the CDSR.

•To develop and implement strategies to improve the use and citation of Cochrane Reviews.

•To contribute to efforts to maintain long-term viability of CRGs.

•To be an ambassador for the Collaboration for promoting use of the CDSR.

Quality of the CDSR

•To develop and implement strategies to ensure the CDSR keeps it position as a market leader.

•To define the quality of Cochrane Reviews in terms of minimum standards [in consultation with others] and to work with the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board to implement these.

•To help harmonise editorial practice across CRGs to establish best-practice models for sustainable, efficient, and supportive editorial processes used to prepare Cochrane Reviews for publication and to work with the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board to implement these.

•To establish systems to monitor the improvements in quality as a result of the implementation of the minimum standards and best-practice models.

Training and support

•To review current processes used to mentor and support editorial staff, and to establish mechanisms to improve these processes.

Governance and communication

•To keep up to date with developments in The Cochrane Collaboration in terms of methodological developments, technical developments (e.g. information management systems and Review Manager software), publishing developments (e.g. Copy Edit Support), and policy developments that have the potential to impact on the quality of Cochrane Reviews and editorial processes, and to incorporate these in minimum standards and best-practice models where appropriate.

•Ensure good communication about the strategic direction of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board, and the resulting activities, throughout relevant entities within The Cochrane Collaboration and with the publisher.

•To develop a work plan (for three to five years) in establishing priorities.

•To organise the annual Co-ordinating Editors’ Board meetings.

Other

•Recommend various personnel actions including, but not limited to, hiring and performance appraisals.

•To manage a budget for the Office of the Editor in Chief Co-ordinating Editors’ Board, attached to this post.

•Perform other related duties incidental to the work described herein, including international travel.

•The above statements describe the general nature and level of work being performed by the individual assigned to this position. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all responsibilities and duties required.

Office of the Editor in Chief
Indicative Budget

Recommendation 4: Employment of the Editor in Chief

That the CCSG establish a selection panel to inform the choice of recruitment agency and selection process, with members to include representatives of the CCSG, Co-ordinating Editors’ executive, the publisher, and external parties as required.

Recommendation 5: Editorial Board membership

•That the Co-ordinating Editor(s) of each registered group be a member of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board, with one vote per group in such situations, and with a named delegate if Co-ordinating Editor is absent.

•That the Editor in Chief be an ex officio member of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board.

Recommendation 6: Operation of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board

That the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board meets on (at least) an annual basis, with a quorum of 40%.

Recommendation 7: Formal establishment of executive group of Co-ordinating Editors’ Board

•That the CCSG approve the formal establishment of an executive group of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board.

Co-ordinating Editors’ executive

•5-7 people

•CCSG representatives chair and deputy chair

•Rotating membership (3 years, up to 2 terms)

•CoEds can nominate themselves or others

•Composition based on

–Members having available time

–Geography

–Gender

–Skills and experience

–Trust of colleagues

–Mix of groups

•Proposal for new members put forward by the Executive prior to annual Co-ordinating Editors’ Board meeting

•Approval by full Co-ordinating Editors’ Board

•Members of the Co-ordinating Editors’ Board can call for an election if there is not a consensus on proposed new members

Concerns

•Exclusivity/representativeness

•Name

•Relationship to other groups

•Decision making

•Implementation of decisions

•Cost of the Editor in Chief

Exclusivity

•NOT an exclusive club

–CoEds recognise the important contributions of RGCs, Centres, methods groups and others

Co-ordinating Editors’ Board will

•Improve communication and collaboration between the CoEds and other groups

–NOT reduce it

•Reduce duplication of efforts

–NOT to increase it

•Focus primarily on improving CoEds’ ability to fulfil the responsibilities that we already have as CoEds and

•Make ourselves accountable

–In particular for the quality of what goes into CDSR

–The buck stops with us, although we may delegate that responsibility

Why not a more broadly based Board?

•The Co-ordinating Editors’ Board is NOT intended to duplicate the CCSG or to assume responsibilities of CCSG

–Any effort to achieve representativeness would end up being a parallel CCSG

The Co-ordinating Editors’ Board is

•A board of CoEds

–CoEds currently have responsibility for what goes into CDSR

–CoEds may delegate responsibility and representation

•An advisory group to the CCSG

•A decision-making body within the remit that CoEds already have, that has formed from the need of CoEds to be

–More cohesive,

–Better at communicating,

–More effective in fulfilling our responsibilities, and

–Accountable

Relationship to other groups and communication with other groups

•Methods Groups

•Handbook Advisory Group

•Other advisory groups

–Quality Advisory Group

–Information Management System

–Feedback Management
Centres

•CCSG

•RGCs, TSCs

•Editors, review authors

What’s in a name?

•Some people feel that ’Co-ordinating Editors’ Board’ suggests something other than what is proposed

•There is wide variation in editorial boards

•Some editorial boards have a similar structure to what is being proposed

–Sub-editors with delineated responsibilities and an Editor in Chief

•Alternative suggestions?

–Proposed alternatives would add to Cochrane jargon and be opaque outside of the Collaboration

Decision making

•At least one annual meeting at Colloquia

•First meeting at the Freiburg Colloquium in 2008

•Quorum of 40% (i.e. set at 20 of 51 in March 2008)

•When a vote is required, one vote per review group

–Requires 40% for the vote to be officially accepted

–A decision would require 75% in favour

Further thoughts about decision making

•Will evolve incrementally

•The entire Board may be involved in all decisions initially

•Decision-making will likely be increasingly delegated to the Executive over time

•Decision making primarily by consensus (with a balance between achieving consensus and taking action/moving forward)

•Preparation and vetting of proposals prior to meetings

•OK for there to be delegates at meetings

•Use of technology to facilitate participation, such as call in or other fancy technologies

•Possibility of parallel meetings; e.g. simultaneous meetings in Australia, Europe and North America with technological links

Implementation of decisions

Incremental approach:

•Not possible to do everything at once

•The Co-ordinating Editors’ Board, the Executive and the Office of the Editor in Chief will evolve over time

•Peer pressure, transparency, accountability

•Initial consensus on key decisions, taking into account CRGs’ capacity (personnel, resources) to implement decisions

•Development of formal agreement between CoEds and the Editor in Chief

•Possible grading of decisions

–e.g. mandatory or desirable

•Office of the Editor in Chief

–Leadership & management

–Staff / resources

–Direct communication with RGCs

•Monitoring of quality

•Restructuring of CRGs?

Cost of EiC
The current cash flow forecast shows that, once the likely costs of the EiC have been taken into account, the money remaining at the end of the next four financial years (less reserve) is in the order of:

2008-09 £ 802,552

2009-10 £ 569,268

2010-11 £ 478,123

2011-12 £ 507,765

•This is not the amount that can be allocated at any one time, due to cash flow timing of income and expenditure, but the cost of the EiC is affordable.

•The CEB is not expected to need any significant funding. It will be up to CoEds to finance their own participation.

Risks of approving the CoEds’ recommendations

•Opportunity costs

•Co-ordinating Editors’ Board does not deliver

•EiC does not deliver

•Need for other changes in advisory groups

•Shift from Collaboration’s voluntary ethos

•Conflict between EiC, Co-ordinating Editors’ Board and CCSG

•Perceptions of exclusivity

Risks of not approving the CoEds’ recommendations or postponing a decision

•Demoralising for the CoEds

•At least a 6 month delay in recruiting an EiC

•A one year delay in having the first Co-ordinating Editors’ Board meeting and getting started on a work plan

•A loss of the hugely positive momentum leading up to and coming out of the London meeting

•A loss of trust between the CoEds and the CCSG

•A lost opportunity

•Uncertainty about the Collaboration’s ability to adapt and evolve

•If an alternative proposal is not developed and implemented – ongoing problems with the quality of reviews, editorial processes and CDSR

•Ongoing problems with accountability, communication, problems with implementing decisions across CRGs, harmonisation across CRGs

Work Plan

•Actions that are prioritised for immediate action or further development would be discussed with the Editor in Chief, once appointed

•The EiC would develop a more extensive work plan in the first three months after being appointed

Work Plan

The work plan includes:

•Moving towards the development and implementation of standards for reviews and editorial processes

•Actions to improve the quality of reviews and editorial processes

•Developing a vision for CDSR

•The Editor in Chief is necessary for making progress on these

Short-term Work Plan

•Appointment of Editor in Chief

•Implementation of RoB and SoF tables

•Improvement of relationships with other key groups

•Workflow and tracking system

•CoEd job description

The bottom line

We need both a Co-ordinating Editors’ Board and an Editor in Chief!

Declarations of interest

The CCSG is the governing body of The Cochrane Collaboration, and the board of directors of the registered charity. Its members are elected by the overall membership of The Cochrane Collaboration for three years, with annual rotation of a proportion of its members. A conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest (e.g. personal financial gain) can influence, or have the appearance of influencing, judgments regarding the primary interest (e.g. service on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group). Steering Group members are asked to disclose all relationships with commercial organisations that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest. The term 'related organisation' in the questions below means any organisation related to health care or medical research. These declarations of interest are updated quarterly.

Lorne Becker, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, Member, Executive Group; Convenor, Publishing Policy Group; Author and Peer Referee, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Review Group; Author, Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group; Member, Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group, and Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I received an honorarium from Thompson Micromedex for serving on the editorial board of their DiseaseDex publication. This relationship ended on 1 July 2006.

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

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

6. Received personal gifts from a related organisation? 
Yes: I have received small gifts from the Welch Allyn Corporation and the Dutch Dairy Council.

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

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

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: in the past five years, I have received research funding from the National Institutes of Health, World Health Organization, California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (research money derived from the tax on cigarettes), Flight Attendants Medical Research Institute, National Science Foundation, and Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: I have received consulting fees from the University of Colorado for conducting workshops in evidence-based medicine. I receive an annual consulting fee from British Medical Journal Publishing for serving as a senior editor for Tobacco Control. In 2008, I anticipate being a paid consultant to the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), for independent research on drugs funded by the Italian Medicines Agency. 

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I have accepted honoraria from Kaiser Permanente for talks on (a) evaluating the quality of research and (b) tobacco industry manipulation of research, the World Conference on Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics for a talk on managing financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials, and the Brooklyn Law School for a talk and paper on systematic reviews, and the British Columbia Cancer Agency for a talk on bias in clinical trials. I have also received honoraria from the University of Toronto and Harvard University for serving as a member of a faculty promotion committee. 

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No. Since 1991, I have been a full-time faculty employee of the University of California, San Francisco. 

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

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

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

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: I receive about $50 US per year in royalty fees from the University of California Press for publication of 'The Cigarette Papers'. 

B.  Non-financial interests

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

Jonathan Craig, Cochrane Review Group representative (of Co-ordinating Editors), Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Co-ordinating Editor Liaison with Monitoring and Registration Group; Co-ordinating Editor and Author, Cochrane Renal Group; Author, Cochrane Anaesthesia, Incontinence, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Ear Nose and Throat, and Gynaecological Cancer Review Groups; Member, Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group and Child Health Field:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

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

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I have received funding from Cochrane Collaboration core funds to co-ordinate the initiative to develop Cochrane Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. From 2007 to 2012 I am in receipt of a grant from the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme to support the implementation of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy within The Cochrane Collaboration. I have received grants for both methodological and clinical projects from the UK NHS Research Methodology Programme, the UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme, and the UK Medical Research Council.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: I have received payment from the British Medical Journal for reviewing and attending committees since 2000.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: I received an honorarium from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for lecturing in 2004, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (University of Oxford) in 2006 and 2007, and from the Programma Regione-Università Regione Emilia-Romagna in 2007 for assessing grant applications.

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

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

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

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

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: my team has received royalty payments from the British Medical Journal  for reprint sales.

B. Non-financial interests

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

Zbigniew Fedorowicz, Representative of members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Director, Bahrain Branch of the UK Cochrane Centre; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; 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 a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

Ruth Foxlee, Trials Search Co-ordinator Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Information Management System Group; Member, RevMan Advisory Group; Trials Search Co-ordinator, Cochrane Wounds Group; Author, Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research: No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B. Non-financial interests

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

Donna Gillies, Author Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Treasurer; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Handbook Advisory Group; Author, Acute Respiratory Infections, Anaesthesia, Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis, Heart, Musculoskeletal, Neonatal, Schizophrenia, and Wounds Review Groups; Peer Reviewer, Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis, Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, and Anaesthesia Review Groups:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? 
Yes: I have received honoraria as a reviewer for the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

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

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

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

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

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

B. Non-financial interests

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

Adrian Grant, Co-Chair, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Convenor, Executive Group; Author, Cochrane Incontinence, Pregnancy and Childbirth, Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases, and Renal Review Groups; Consumer Reviewer, Cochrane Neuromuscular Diseases Review Group:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

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

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B. Non-financial interests

Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest?
I am Director of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme in England.

Sally Green, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Director, Australasian Cochrane Centre; Co-Convenor, Quality Advisory Group and Handbook Advisory Group; Author, Musculoskeletal, 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?
All my research is funded through competitive research grants. I have no commercial research contracts. My current grants are from The Australian Department of Health and Ageing, The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The Wellcome Trust, Andrology Australia, and The National Heart Foundation of Australia.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? 
I act as a consultant to the Australian government.

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.

Joy Oliver, Centre Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group; Steering Group representative, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Member, South African Cochrane Centre; Assistant Review Group Co-ordinator, HIV/AIDS Group:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

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

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? 
Yes: I received an unrestricted amount of 5000 euro from Organon Biosciences as a contribution to a symposium.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

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

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
Yes: I receive a stipend from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology for my editorship of the Journal. I also receive honoraria from the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation?
Yes: from Abbott, Almirall, AMC Amsterdam, American College of Rheumatology, Astra Zeneca, Aventis, Berlex, Biomatrix, Bristol Myers Squibb, British Medical Journal, Cadeuceus Group, Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Canadian Association of Gastroenterologists, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Centocor, Dimedix, Dimethaid, Eli Lilly, Foundation for Better Health Care, Glaxo-Welcome, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Innovus, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Johnson & Johnson, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Larvol, Lilly Research, Medicine Group, Medicus, Merck, Merck Frosst, Milbank Memorial Fund, NIHES Amsterdam, Novartis, Novopharm, Ortho McNeil, Pennside, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Scios, Searle, Society for General Internal Medicine, Solvay, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Wyeth Ayerst, UCB, University of Minnesota, University of British Columbia, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, University of Southampton, UpToDate, VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? 
See #1 above.

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

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

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

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

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation?
Yes: I receive royalties for the book 'Evidence-Based Rheumatology' from BMJ Books as well as royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins for the textbook 'Clinical Epidemiology'. I also receive editorial royalties from UpToDate.

B.  Non-financial interests

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

Janet Wale, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Quality Advisory Group; freelance editor and consumer representative on Commonwealth of Australia and Western Australian health committees; consumer for the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Musculoskeletal, and Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Review Groups: 

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

Liz Whamond, Consumer Network Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Publishing Policy Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Member, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group; Consumer referee, Cochrane Breast Cancer Group:  

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and Vice-Chair of the Canadian Cancer Action Network.  

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

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

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

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

B. Non-financial interests

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

Katrina Williams, Field Representative, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Member, Executive Group; Steering Group representative, Cochrane Library Users' Group; Advisory Board member, Child Health Field; Editor and Author, Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group:  

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B. Non-financial interests

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

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

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research?
I am funded by a Department of Health and Ageing (Australian Government) grant.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

4. Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of management with a related organisation? No: I am an employee of The Children's Hospital at Westmead and Associated Academic Staff with the 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 members of Cochrane Review Groups, Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group; Steering Group representative, CENTRAL Vision Group; Member, Monitoring and Registration Group and Publishing Policy Group; Member, Airways Group, Ear, Nose and Throat Group, Skin Group; Member, Child Health Field:

A. Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? 
Yes: as an employee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, I have received research funding from two pharmaceutical companies:  GlaxoSmithKline and ARTU Biologicals.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? 
Yes: as a reviewer of papers, I have received several vouchers from the BMJ Publishing Group, and a fee from The Lancet.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation?
Yes: Erasmus MC received an honorarium from GlaxoSmithKline for my involvement in a study on impetigo.

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

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

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

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

8. Received royalty payments from a related organisation? 
Yes: as an employee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, I received 1623 euros from the BMJ Publishing Group for royalty fees for the sale of reprints of a paper we published in the BMJ.

B. Non-financial interests

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

Declarations of interest of Secretariat staff

Jini Hetherington, Administrator and Company Secretary, Cochrane Collaboration Secretariat:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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

Nick Royle, Chief Executive Officer, The Cochrane Collaboration; Member, Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group; Member, Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group:

A.  Financial interests

In the last five years, have you:

1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? No.

2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for a related organisation? No.

3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related organisation? No.

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

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

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

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

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

B.  Non-financial interests

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