Minutes of
the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting,
22 and 25
October 2007
[These
minutes were approved by the Executive on 20 November 2007.]
|
Subject |
Item no. |
|
Academic
versus practical evidence-based health care |
19 |
|
Annual
General Meetings, agenda for |
22 |
|
Cash
flow forecast |
29.3 |
|
CENTRAL
interim measures and moving forward |
10; 21.1.2 |
|
Centre
issues |
21.2; 25 |
|
Chief
Executive Officer’s report |
4 |
|
Clinical
trials, Principles for protecting integrity in the conduct and reporting of |
36.1 |
|
Co-Chairs’
report |
3 |
|
Cochrane
Opportunities Fund |
5.1 |
|
Cochrane
Prioritisation Fund |
5.1 |
|
Cochrane
Review Group (CRG) issues |
21.1 |
|
Cochrane
reviews, changes to the Feedback system for |
11 |
|
Collaboration
review in 2008 |
16 |
|
Colloquia,
the next three |
4.3; 28.1; 28.2 |
|
Colloquium
2009 in |
28.2 |
|
Declarations
of interest |
2; 25 |
|
Developing
Countries Network |
21.2 |
|
Diagnostic
test accuracy reviews, register progress report; publication arrangements |
5.2; 33 |
|
Discretionary
Fund expenditure |
31 |
|
Editorial
board, development and establishment of an |
6; 21.1.1; 21.3.1 |
|
Entities,
deregistering Cochrane (MRG report) |
17.4 |
|
Entities,
establishing new Cochrane (MRG report) |
17.3 |
|
Entities,
flagging up problems within (MRG report) |
17.1 |
|
Environmental
sustainability |
32 |
|
Evidence-based
health care, academic versus practical |
19 |
|
Feedback
system, changes to the |
11 |
|
Field/Network
issues |
21.4 |
|
Financial
position and cash flow forecast |
29 |
|
Five-year
review of the Steering Group |
15 |
|
Guidelines
International Network (G.I.N.), invitation to join advisory board of |
14 |
|
Handbook
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions |
9 |
|
IMS
and workflow |
21.1.4 |
|
IMS,
status report on the development of the |
8 |
|
Industry
funding of trials, regular reporting of |
20 |
|
Information
Management System (IMS) , status report on the development of the |
8 |
|
Key
performance data |
24 |
|
Methods
Group issues |
21.3 |
|
Monitoring
and Registration Group (MRG) report |
17 |
|
Ombudsmen,
report from the |
26.1 |
|
Opportunities
Fund |
5.1 |
|
Plain
language summaries |
5.4 |
|
Principles
for protecting integrity in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials |
36.1 |
|
Prioritisation
Fund |
5.1 |
|
Profit
and Loss statements and cash flow forecast |
29.3 |
|
Project
Support Officer |
5.3 |
|
Problems
within entities, flagging up (MRG report) |
17.1 |
|
Publication
arrangements for Cochrane protocols & reviews of diagnostic test accuracy |
5.2; 33 |
|
Publishing
Cochrane products (Wiley-Blackwell report) |
12 |
|
Publishing
contract, extension of |
13 |
|
Register
of diagnostic test accuracy studies - progress report |
5.2 |
|
Report
and Financial Statements |
29.2 |
|
Review
of the Collaboration in 2008 |
16 |
|
Review
of the Steering Group, five-year, in 2006 |
15 |
|
RevMan
5 rollout and implementation strategy |
7 |
|
RevMan
5 training |
7.1 |
|
|
3; 37 |
|
Secretariat
staff issues |
4.4 |
|
|
28.2 |
|
Special
session in |
19 |
|
Spreadsheet
of outstanding action items |
34 |
|
STD
Group |
17.2 |
|
Steering
Group review in 2006 |
15 |
|
Steering
Group meetings, the next three |
27 |
|
Steering
Group members’ declarations of interest |
2 |
|
Strategic
Plan - Management Plan |
23 |
|
Succession
planning |
4.4; 18; 21.1.3 |
|
Trading
Company Directors’ report |
30 |
|
Training
in RevMan 5 and other Collaboration training needs |
7.1; 7.2 |
|
Treasurer’s
report |
29 |
|
|
19 |
|
Wiley-Blackwell
report (publishing Cochrane products) |
12 |
Minutes of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering
Group meeting,
22 and 25 October
2007
[These
minutes were approved by the Executive on 20 November 2007.]
Present: Steering Group members Godwin
Aja, Lorne Becker (Co-Chair), Lisa Bero, Jonathan Craig, Jon Deeks, Zbys
Fedorowicz, Ruth Foxlee, Donna Gillies (Treasurer), Adrian Grant (Co-Chair),
Sally Green, Joy Oliver, Rob Scholten, Peter Tugwell, Janet Wale, Liz Waters,
Liz Whamond, Katrina Williams, Narelle Willis and Hans van der Wouden.
Also present:
1.
Welcomes, apologies for
absence, and approval of the agenda
2.
Steering Group members’ declarations
of interest
There were no further declarations of interest in addition to those that had
been circulated with the agenda.
3.
Introduction from the
Co-Chairs
Adrian described some of the highlights of the past six months, particularly the
Prioritisation and Opportunities Funds, and the Co-ordinating Editors’
initiative to develop an editorial board (see
also item 6). He said that several people outside
4.
Chief Executive Officer’s
report:
4.1 The
Collaboration Secretariat: Nick thanked
4.2 Governance and structure: Nick
reported that the production rate of reviews had picked up since the Steering
Group had last met, and highlighted the fact that there had been an increase in
the Collaboration‘s income over the previous year. The work on establishing an
editorial board was now underway, thanks in particular to the hard work of Sophie
Hill; this board might take over some of the current role of the
4.3 Future Colloquia: Nick explained
that he was currently working with Steve McDonald, Co-Convenor of the
Colloquium Policy Advisory Group, to develop a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU), with timelines and checkpoints, for future Colloquium hosts. He invited
suggestions for better management of some of the core functions of Colloquia. Sally
pointed out that the Collaboration had a good track record for Colloquia, and that
too many bureaucratic expectations in a MoU might put off potential Colloquium hosts:
it is the local organisers who bear the risk of hosting a Colloquium, and it
was agreed that the proposed MoU should be supportive rather than restrictive.
The document, ‘Standard operating procedures for Colloquia’, would form the
core of the MoU, and is potentially an extremely helpful resource for future
Colloquium hosts, although there could be an accessibility issue for some as it
is written in English.
4.4 Secretariat staff issues: Claire,
Jini and Nick left the meeting for discussion of extension of the CEO’s
contract and Secretariat staff succession planning. It was agreed to extend the
CEO’s contract by a further three years, from 1 April 2008. The Co-Chairs and
CEO would work together to ensure that the Collaboration could continue to make
the best use of the
Action: Adrian, Lorne
5. Progress
on projects:
5.1 Prioritisation and Opportunities
Funds: Nick reported that formal agreements were now in place for all but
one of the successful applications to these two Funds, and that some of the
deliverables had already been achieved.
5.2 Diagnostic test accuracy reviews - register
second progress report: The second progress report on the Register of
Reports of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, prepared by Ruth Mitchell on behalf of the
Cochrane Renal Group, was welcomed.
Jon explained that he had been in discussions with Wiley-Blackwell with regard
to their supporting this initiative. The negotiations had been somewhat protracted
but Wiley-Blackwell had recently suggested a willingness to fund a near-cost
level journal for this initiative, including other content. It was clarified
that the proposed journal would not include non-Cochrane reviews. There is
money up front to employ an executive editor half-time, who would also be
responsible for managing the production of this type of review. It was unlikely
that there would be royalties until year 3 and they were unlikely to be large. Concerns
were expressed that the work involved in launching the journal at this stage could
potentially detract from the implementation of diagnostic test reviews in the
Collaboration, and associated training activities.
Post
hoc note: The decision was made after the Steering Group meeting not to
launch a journal at this time.
5.3 Project
Support Officer: Nick spoke to the draft job description for the
Project Support and Communications Officer. He asked the Steering Group to
consider whether the Project Support Officer should be located in the
Secretariat or elsewhere. It was agreed that whilst the expectation should be
that the post be co-located with the CEO, if the most suitable candidate was
unable to relocate to
Action: Jon, Nick
5.4 Templates for Plain Language
Summaries (PLS): Lorne reported that he had discussed with the Norwegian Branch
of the Nordic Cochrane Centre the confusion that had arisen with regard to the
grant from the Opportunities Fund to develop templates for Plain Language
Summaries (PLS). Recent e-mails concerning this project had included modified Summary
of Findings tables with the suggestion that they could be incorporated into the
PLS; however, the Steering Group confirmed that no decision had been made to
incorporate tables into the PLS.
6.
Development and establishment of an editorial
board
[Deborah D and Deborah PG were present
for discussion of this item.]
Adrian recommended and it was agreed that the appointment of an editor-in-chief,
should this post be established, should be made by the Steering Group, in close
consultation with the Co-ordinating Editors. Previous Co-ordinating Editors
should also be able to be considered for this position. There was a strong
sense that the Steering Group is supportive of this proposal, with some uncertainty
as to its functions, and tension between cohesion of Co-ordinating Editors and implementation
of existing quality measures versus an editorial board function in respect of
whether or not reviews should be published in The Cochrane Library. There would have to be co-ordination with the
editorial board of diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Deborah Dixon welcomed the
prospect of an editorial board, as it would give Wiley-Blackwell a focus for
dealing with editorial issues, with the Steering Group continuing to be the
focus for discussions and decisions on strategic matters.
7. RevMan
5 rollout and implementation strategy
Monica described an amendment to the background document she had provided: the central
automatic conversion will happen in November 2008 rather than December 2008.
Monica explained that in principle the conversion of reviews to RevMan 5 could
all happen automatically, but that it would be a good opportunity to pick up on
some minor but important errors in the existing published protocols and
reviews. She reported that two conversion pilots had shown that it takes about
eight minutes to convert a review or a protocol to RevMan 5 manually, including
checking for potential existing problems with by-lines or missing author
affiliations according to a minimum conversion checklist. Correcting the
identified errors were not part of the pilot. More than sixty per cent of converted
reviews needed some editorial attention before they could be ‘re-marked’ for
publication. The Cochrane Library
currently contains more than 1700 protocols and 3300 reviews that need to be
converted. This would take about four to five months for one person to check
all reviews as part of a manual conversion, and cost about 12,000 GBP. The
central conversion would result in a report to each Cochrane Review Group (CRG)
with a list of reviews that needed editorial attention before ‘re-marking’ the
reviews for publication. The alternative would be to ask CRGs if they wished to
convert their own reviews, with some financial help from core Collaboration
funds. An explicit understanding should be built in that a CRG would be
expected to correct those errors in its reviews which had nothing to do with
conversion but which had been identified by the conversion process. There was
discussion as to whether a CRG could give permission to its satellite(s) to do
the conversion in return for funds.
It was agreed that it would be up to
CRGs to arrange how they did the conversion, but that funds would go to the
main CRG for them to disburse to satellites as they saw fit. This
was agreed in principle, in proportion to the number of reviews per CRG. The
IMS Support team would contact the Review Group Co-ordinators to discuss the
best strategy with them (local or central conversion), explaining what would be
involved. The IMS Support team would also collate the CRGs’ decisions. A maximum
of 60,000 GBP was set aside from core funds for the manual conversion work. It
was agreed that this decision should be announced at the Annual General Meeting
in two days’ time, to allay any anxieties about the amount of work involved in
converting reviews and protocols to RevMan 5.
Adrian and Lorne agreed to send the proposed letter to all Cochrane authors to give
them details of the RevMan 5 rollout plans, copying in the Author and CRG ‘at
large’ representatives, Donna, Hans and Zbys.
Action: Monica, Adrian, Lorne, Nick
7.1 & 7.2 Training in RevMan 5 and other Collaboration training needs: Donna spoke about the
issue of training needs for Cochrane authors, and the availability of a
self-paced tutorial on the
Action: Donna, Joy, Lisa, Rob, Sally
8. Status
report on the development of the IMS
As noted in the background paper, the IMS Team, in consultation with the EMAG,
is proceeding with the programming of a workflow system that would assist RGCs
in moving Cochrane reviews through the entire process from title registration
to publication of the completed (or updated) review. The system could also
provide data on the time spent in completing some of the critical steps in the
review production process, and could therefore be helpful to individual CRGs,
the
The IMSG had asked whether the Steering
Group intended to make the system mandatory for all CRGs once it became available.
The Steering Group agreed that once the workflow and tracking system had been
successfully piloted, it should be rolled out to all CRGs. Some members felt
that purchase of an existing system would be preferable to developing our own,
but it was pointed out that one year’s work had already gone into development
of this system alone, and several years into describing the requirements for
the system. A survey had previously been undertaken of commercial systems and
at that time it had been found that they did not meet the Collaboration’s
needs. Peter pointed out that he did not believe this to be the case: Elsevier,
for example, had a powerful electronic system, and he imagined Wiley-Blackwell
would have too. The Steering Group agreed that the workflow system should be used
uniformly across the Collaboration and be given a high priority by the IMS
Director. Monica was asked to provide a detailed plan as soon as feasible, for any
additional funding that might be necessary to allow for the implementation of a
tracking and workflow system. Monica said she would also try to schedule a
review of new commercial systems to see how these had been developed during the
last couple of years.
Monica asked the Steering Group to help identify
specific groups to be involved in future definitions of workflows.
Post hoc note: Peter reported that there had been unanimous
agreement at the Co-ordinating Editors’ meeting that the Collaboration was lagging
behind the publishing industry standard, and that resources must be found to
solve this as soon as possible. He recommended that Narelle be involved in these
discussions as it was such an important issue for Review Group Co-ordinators,
as should Cindy Farquhar, who is on the Co-ordinating Editors’ Executive.
Action: Jonathan, Peter, Monica, Narelle
Sally expressed appreciation for the enormous contribution of the IMS to the
work of the Collaboration. Monica reported that the IMS team was working to
full capacity, and requested a moratorium on new initiatives until after the
rollout of RevMan 5. She asked the Steering Group to consider increasing the
funding to the IMS. Nick recommended that a request for an increase to the IMS
budget should follow the model adopted (on the Steering Group’s instigation) by
the website development team, with funding to buy in programming assistance as
required, rather than employing additional staff, so that work could be
progressed concurrently rather than consecutively and therefore achieve the desired
deliverables more quickly. He offered to work with Monica on a paper for the next
Steering Group meeting in
Action: Monica, Nick
9. Handbook
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
10. CENTRAL (interim
measures and moving
forward)
The Steering Group held a
preliminary discussion based on Ruth’s report on progress made on the interim
measures for CENTRAL, and the paper by Lorne, Nick and Ruth concerning the
future of CENTRAL. Ruth agreed to present the issues that the Steering Group had
raised, at the joint meeting of RGCs and TSCs the following day, and bring their
recommendations to the Steering Group for discussion on 25 October.
When the
Steering Group revisited this discussion on 25 October, it was affirmed that a Request for Proposals (RFP) was considered to
be a good basis for moving forward, and that this initiative is a priority for
the Steering Group, as CENTRAL is a core platform for the Collaboration. It was
suggested that the name ‘CENTRAL’ has a market presence which should be
retained (i.e. it should not be renamed). It was also suggested that the RFP
should include a list of requirements developed by the TSCs’ Working Group in
collaboration with the Steering Group; they should provide a clear view of the
requirements and not rely on those submitting an RFP to develop the core
components of the proposal. The requirements should include the recommendations
made by the CENTRAL Vision Group and agreed to by the Steering Group (although
it was recognised that the CVG did not cover all aspects of implementation),
and the RFP should address the implications for the TSCs’ work plans. The
process for selection (including membership of the selection panel) should be
clearly defined alongside the fully developed RFP. Jonathan and Nick agreed to
work with Ruth on the RFP.
11. Changes
to the ‘Feedback’ system for Cochrane reviews
Thanks were expressed to
Action: Lorne
12. Publishing
Cochrane products
[Deborah D and Deborah PG were
present for discussion of this item.]
Deborah
PG explained that there had been a sixteen per cent growth in revenue on the
previous year (compared to only a 3-4 per cent growth in Wiley-Blackwell’s
paper journals). Deborah D said that she expected a levelling off in the amount
of revenue. Deborah PG reported that there were now several additional options
in terms of new platforms for delivery of The
Cochrane Library. Deborah announced that as part of its ongoing commitment
to the dissemination of The Cochrane
Library in low- and middle-income countries, Wiley-Blackwell had switched
on all HINARI Band 1 countries (World Bank Figures,
2006, GNP below $1000 per capita) with one-click access free of charge
via Wiley InterScience (www.thecochranelibrary.com).
Access in these countries is based on IP recognition so all residents and
institutions with an Internet connection are now connected. Cochrane Library access via HINARI
remains free for registered users and will be free for the same countries via
INASP from January 2008. Deborah PG said that free access would soon be
publicised widely. Deborah then referred to several areas of future investment
and development, and outlined a stream of different strategies. A paper version
of the Handbook of Systematic Reviews for Interventions would soon be available
for purchase, but Deborah confirmed that the Handbook would continue to be
available for free online through The
Cochrane Library, the Cochrane website and Cochrane’s authoring software
(RevMan).
Deborah D introduced Wiley-Blackwell’s ideas for developing a Cochrane ‘point
of care’ strategy (any location where patient care is provided, including at
the bedside, in a radiology suite, emergency room clinic or ambulance). The potential
market for this would include both system vendors and products. Peter
recommended that this should be pursued in more detail within the Publishing
Policy Group, and also at the mid-year meeting of the Steering Group in
Action: Nick
After Deborah D and Deborah PG had left the meeting,
13. Extension of
publishing contract
Nick
summarised the terms of the draft contract extension, and congratulated
Action: Nick
14. Invitation
to join Guidelines International Network (G.I.N.) advisory board
Lorne agreed
to represent the Collaboration on the G.I.N. advisory board. He would write and
advise them of this, thanking them for their invitation, and suggest to Jeremy
Grimshaw that G.I.N.’s view of the Collaboration be sought as part of the
forthcoming Collaboration-wide review.
Action: Lorne
15. Response to the review
of the Steering Group
Action: Adrian, Jon, Liz, Peter
16. 2008 review of the
Collaboration
Nick
reported that he had discussed with Jeremy Grimshaw his plans for conducting
this review, and they would be communicating weekly during the course of the
review. Nick would draw up the remit for this review on Jeremy’s behalf, and circulate
it to the Steering Group for approval. He explained that the consultation process
would include external stakeholders, but he suggested that such people should
not necessarily form the panel undertaking the review itself because the
learning curve about the Collaboration was steep and time was precious, since
Jeremy would be leading this review during his sabbatical period. Monica
suggested revisiting the work done some years ago by Fenella Rouse to see how
far the Collaboration had come since then. External credibility of the Collaboration-wide
review is important. There should be very clear deadlines, and central funds had
already been allocated in order to facilitate the conduct of the review. This should
be a standing item at the top of the Executive agenda from now on, and
Action: Adrian, Nick
17.
17.1 Flagging
up problems within entities: Rob, as Co-Convenor of the MRG, reported on
the issues raised in the background document for this meeting. The timing of
making the Steering Group aware of problems within particular entities was
discussed; it was agreed that such matters should be flagged up sooner in the future,
where possible. Rob was asked to feedback the content of this discussion to the
relevant people.
17.2 STD Group: Rob informed the Steering
Group about the challenges of moving the STD Group’s editorial base to
17.3 Establishing
new Cochrane entities: There was lengthy discussion of this matter. Some Steering
Group members felt that a campaign to send negative letters to the MRG about a proposed
new entity under discussion, in anticipation of its application, was highly
inappropriate. It was agreed that the MRG should concentrate on responding to
any applications it actually receives.
17.4 Deregistering Cochrane entities: Rob read out a letter
from the MRG to explain its approach with regard to managing problems within a
particular entity. It was noted that the convenor of that entity had stepped
down. The Steering Group agreed to adopt the MRG’s suggestion of the entity
going into ‘hibernation’ for two years. If the entity could be re-established
within that time, under new leadership and with new funding, re-registration
would not be required. A new registration process would need to be undergone if
someone emerged who was willing to take the lead after the two years were over,
and if funds could be assured. The module in The Cochrane Library should communicate this decision clearly.
Action: Rob
18. Succession
planning for Co-ordinating Editors
Thanks
were expressed to Richard Hughes, Co-ordinating Editor of the Neuromuscular
Diseases Group, for his helpful background document, which is also being
discussed by the Co-ordinating Editors. Steering Group members should send any
comments they have directly to Richard. However, the challenge of succession
planning should be kept in mind particularly during discussions at the next
Steering Group meeting in
19. Discussion
topic(s) for special session in Vellore
It was agreed that ‘Academic versus practical evidence-based health care’ should
be one of the topics for discussion at the special session before the next
face-to-face Steering Group meeting in Vellore in April 2008. Peter asked that
he and Jonathan be involved with Adrian, Lorne and Nick in planning this
session. The suggestions made by Wiley-Blackwell for the use of Cochrane
reviews in point of care and CME products should be included in that discussion.
Action: Adrian, Jonathan, Lorne, Nick,
Peter
Other suitable topics suggested for discussion at future special sessions were:
- How we can use our resources most
effectively.
- Evaluation and monitoring of performance as
the result of decisions made.
-
Ensuring sustainability alongside the growth of the organisation.
-
The role of Fields.
- Equity issues.
20. Regular
reporting of industry funding of trials
This item was referred to the Handbook
Advisory Group for consideration, and not discussed at this meeting; the matter
could be brought to the next Steering Group meeting if necessary.
Action: Sally
21. Issues raised at
entity meetings during the Colloquium
21.1 Cochrane Review Group issues:
21.1.1 Proposed
editorial board: A strong sense of urgency had been expressed regarding
issues surrounding the quality of reviews; the importance of avoiding
over-emphasis on bureaucracy; the work overload of RGCs; and the need for
better reporting to constituents by the Steering Group’s sub- and advisory
groups.
21.1.2 CENTRAL:
Concerns were expressed as to whether the tendering process for the development
of CENTRAL should be internal alone; the majority of Steering Group members were
not in favour of allowing external as well as internal applicants. The RFP was
seen as a good way to move this issue forward; concerns had been expressed
about the lateness of the background paper, leaving no time to consult with
TSCs about it; the TSCs’ desire to establish a group which would look at things
other than CENTRAL was acknowledged. This group would ideally provide a
streamlined mechanism for TSCs to communicate with the Steering Group
effectively and in a timely manner on a range of issues. It would also help to
ensure that the breadth of knowledge and experience that TSCs hold collectively
informs the decisions that affect their working practices. Steering Group
members were uncomfortable about the lack of detail in the report from the
CENTRAL Vision Group (CVG) as to the exact requirements of CENTRAL; they had
only received summary recommendations, not true system requirements. The
details of the CVG’s report should be reflected in the RFP(s). The position of
project manager should be built in as one of the project requirements.
21.1.3 Succession
planning: The Co-ordinating Editors would
be discussing this challenge further and bringing their recommendations to the
Steering Group in due course (see also item 18).
Action: Jonathan, Peter
21.1.4 Workflow:
The Co-ordinating Editors saw this as a high
priority. There was an expectation that the IMS would be uniformly used once it
had been fully developed (see also item 8).
21.2 Centre issues: Concern had been
expressed with regard to the need for training in methodological developments,
and Centre Directors had agreed that development of training materials would be
a priority for Centres. There had also been strong support for involving
Cochrane Centres in the proposal to establish a Developing Countries Network
(DCN). Lisa explained that she was working with the DCN to this end. Centre
Directors had expressed support for a Steering Group member to join the G.I.N.
advisory board.
21.3 Methods
Group issues: Jon explained that members of Methods Groups had been unable
to meet between the two Steering Group meetings during the Colloquium, and
would meet the following morning, due to clashes of workshop and meeting slots.
He would report back any key issues to the Steering Group by e-mail following
the meeting (see post hoc note below).
The Handbook Advisory Group had managed to meet, and reminded Co-ordinating
Editors that a representative was still required to review the updated Handbook
before the end of 2007: Peter and Jonathan undertook to canvass for people to
do this.
Action: Peter, Jonathan
Post hoc note:
21.3.1 Editorial board: The Methods Group Convenors welcomed the Co-ordinating Editors'
recognition of the importance of review quality and their plans to make a
combined effort, in the form of an editorial board, to improve this. The
Convenors expressed their desire to work with the editorial board to ensure
suitability of protocols and reviews based on methodological quality. The
methodologists in the Collaboration provide a source of expertise which is
unrivalled in even the most influential medical journals, and the Collaboration
should ensure that they make best use of this.
21.3.2 Methods
Groups' activities at the Colloquium: The organisation of workshops at this
Colloquium, whereby each Methods Group had been promised one workshop slot, had
been well received. It was requested that this policy be continued and if
possible one of the co-chairs of the Colloquium workshop panels be a
methodologist, since Methods Groups play such a large part in the workshop
programme. The scheduling of oral papers against workshops and meetings at the
São Paulo Colloquium had caused problems as many methodologists were giving
workshops at the same time as oral sessions were timetabled in which they had
an interest, and some Methods Groups had not managed to obtain meeting slots at
appropriate times because of clashes with workshops or oral papers.
21.4 Field/Network
issues: No issues were raised for
discussion.
22. Agenda
for Annual General Meetings (AGMs)
The format of the AGMs was discussed. It was agreed that it would be important to
be open and transparent about the challenges of having revenue to distribute,
and how to do so equitably throughout the Collaboration. Lorne, Donna and Nick would make presentations at
this meeting.
23. Strategic Plan -
Management Plan
This
document was used as background to the Steering Group’s discussions.
24. Key
performance data – consent item: no discussion.
25. Declarations
of interest for Cochrane Centres – consent item: no discussion.
26. Reports from
people with special roles:
26.1 The
Ombudsmen: Lorne asked for this item to be moved from the consent agenda
for discussion and decision of the questions raised by the Ombudsmen at the
beginning of their report. It was affirmed that the Co-Chairs and the CEO are
the Ombudsmen’s first point of contact on matters pertaining to Collaboration
practice and policy. Issues needing discussion and decision by the Steering
Group would be brought to them as and when required. There was no need for the
Ombudsmen to provide an additional written report to the Steering Group other
than the one they had already provided. Lorne would convey this discussion to
the Ombudsmen.
Action: Lorne
27. The next three
Steering Group meetings – consent item: no discussion.
28. The next three
Cochrane Colloquia
28.1 Freiburg and Keystone,
28.2 Singapore
Colloquium 2009: Sally explained
that the Australasian Cochrane Centre would be supporting the Singapore Branch in
hosting their Colloquium. The dates of the
Singapore Colloquium had originally been set for early October but had had to
be changed because of the risk of clashing with the Formula One Grand Prix.
Efforts to identify alternative dates had been constrained by
Action: Peter, Sally, Nick
29. Treasurer’s
report:
29.1 Expenditure
of Cochrane Collaboration core funds: Donna explained the background to
the document she had produced with Lorne and Nick, which generated some discussion
but no decisions. Lisa agreed to go back to the reviews where there had been some
question about funding sources and clarify these, to make sure they were in
compliance with the Collaboration’s policy.
Action:
Lisa
29.2 Report and Financial Statements:
These documents had been circulated separately, and would be discussed at the
Annual General Meeting on 25 October. Lorne would address at that meeting the
question from the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, about which the Steering
Group had been notified in advance, as to how the Steering Group intended to
spend the increased revenue from royalties to the benefit of Cochrane entities.
It was agreed that it would be important to describe how much money was being
talked about, and to focus on the establishment of an editorial board and other
items of central support which are for the benefit of all Review Groups.
The challenge of how to spend the
funds wisely is firmly on the Steering Group’s agenda, and input and advice
over the next six months would be welcomed. All options are on the table, and
this will be a major part of the Steering Group’s discussions at its next
meeting in
Action: Donna
29.3 Profit
and Loss statements, and cash flow forecast: Donna described the change in
the Collaboration’s expenditure patterns, which she would be highlighting at
the Annual General Meeting. She thanked Graham Carson, the Collaboration’s
bookkeeper, for producing the Profit and Loss statements in a clear and
understandable format.
30. Trading
Company Directors’ report
31. Discretionary
Fund expenditure
This item was for information only, and required no discussion.
32. Decisions taken at
this meeting which might have an impact on environmental sustainability
Some additional
travel costs for one of the Co-Chairs were approved because of the Steering
Group’s acceptance of the invitation to join the G.I.N. advisory board. Otherwise,
no decisions had been taken at this meeting that would have an impact on
environmental sustainability.
33. Minutes of the
previous meeting in
There were no matters arising from the minutes of the Steering Group meeting in
Item 20.1 -
Publication arrangements for Cochrane protocols and reviews of diagnostic test
accuracy: Jon
explained the challenges of publishing this type of review. The Steering Group
agreed to pursue the option offered by Wiley-Blackwell of a new ‘derivative’
journal, ‘Cochrane Diagnostic Reviews’, in which the reviews would be published
at the same time as being published in the Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews. The Steering Group agreed to the creation
of an editorial board and to the working arrangement whereby the board would
have to sign off Cochrane Diagnostic Reviews [and Protocols] jointly
with the relevant CRG before they could be published in The Cochrane Library. The editorial board would be answerable to
the Publishing Policy Group. Mark [Davies] expressed thanks to Wiley for
actively supporting this initiative.
A post hoc amendment to incorporate
the words “and Protocols” (as indicated above) should be made to the version of
these minutes on the website.
Action: Jini
34. Spreadsheet of
Steering Group members’ outstanding action items
Steering Group members were reminded that this spreadsheet is a tool to assist
them in keeping track of things they have undertaken to do, and they should
continue to notify the Secretariat as they complete these items, in order for
the spreadsheet to be updated and therefore useful.
Action: Everyone
35. Allocation of funds to specific proposals
Lorne itemised the amounts of funding which had been allocated to specific
proposals during this meeting: 60,000 GBP for RevMan 5 conversion; a maximum of
100,000 GBP towards employing an outside consultant to advise on the
Collaboration review; additional Trials Search Co-ordinators’ Working Group funding
to support participation in putting together the CENTRAL Request for Proposals;
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Group support; possible additional programming
costs for the workflow and tracking system; and travel costs involved in one of
the Co-Chairs joining the Guidelines International Network advisory board.
36. Any other business:
36.1 Principles
for protecting integrity in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials: Thanks were expressed to
Kay Dickersin for her background paper. Steering Group members had some concerns
as to how the principles outlined in this paper would apply to trial results in
registers. They were urged to respond directly to the Chairs of the Writing
Committee if they had suggestions. Lisa would report back to Kay and the
Writing Committee. In addition, Jon would bring the background paper to the
attention of the Bias Methods Group for consideration, and the issue could be
brought to the Executive for discussion if thought appropriate.
Action: Lisa, Jon
36.2 Funding: Following the concerns that had been expressed during
the AGM, it was agreed that the Steering Group should consult broadly about how
to distribute the accumulating funds equitably throughout the Collaboration. Peter Jüni of the Methodology Review Group had said at the AGM that the
Collaboration needed to maintain the quality and up-to-dateness of reviews if
the Collaboration were to hold onto its market share, and had argued that
investment in strategic activities, which would improve the quality and timeliness
of reviews, was crucial. Entity representatives were encouraged to consult with their
constituents for ideas about equitable distribution and forward them to Donna (see also item 29.1).
Action: Everyone
37.
Thanks to the hosts and
organisers of the meeting
Lorne thanked
Alvaro Atallah, the staff of the Brazilian Cochrane Centre, members of staff at
BIREME, and the local organising committee, for hosting such an enjoyable Colloquium.