Quality Advisory Group (QAG) report to CCSG meeting Providence
1.
How many
meetings, and of what type (e.g. face-to-face, by teleconference), has your
Advisory Group had since October 2004?
Members of QAG met face to face at
the Ottawa Colloquium and the co-convenors have met by teleconference once
since. The two working groups associated with QAG (Cochrane Collaboration Style
Guide Working Group and CRG Resource Website Working Group) continue to meet by
teleconference.
Is this what you expected when you set
your budget for the year?
Yes.
2.
Supply an
up-to-date list of the members of your Advisory Group.
Mike Clarke Methods
Group representative
Jane Cracknell RGC/TSC
representative; EMAG liaison
Mark Davies Reviewer
[CCSG representative]
Jon Deeks Methods
Group representative (Statistics)
Cindy Farquhar Co-ordinating
Editor representative
Graziella Filippini Co-ordinating
Editor representative
Sally Green Co-Convenor; Centre
representative
Julian Higgins Editor
representative
Peter Juni Has
interest and expertise in systematic review quality
Monica Kjeldstrψm Information
Management System Group representative
Tina Leonard RGC/TSC
representative
Harriet MacLehose Co-Convenor
Steve McDonald Trials
Search Co-ordinator representative
Laura Mellor Desk
Editor, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Philippa Middleton Handbook
Group representative
Nancy Owens Former
Quality Improvement Manager
Andy Oxman Editor
representative
Rob Scholten Reviewer
representative
Bev Shea Reviewer
representative
Sherri Sheinfeld Gorin Criticism
Management Advisory Group representative
Lois Sims Update
Software representative
Liz Wager Has
interest and expertise in systematic review quality
Janet Wale Consumer
[CCSG representative]
Liz Waters Field
representative
3.
Summarise
any significant actions taken by your Advisory Group since your last report
(for the CCSG meeting in Ottawa in October 2004), and significant actions
planned for the next six months until the next meeting of the CCSG in
Providence in April 2005.
3.1.
Actions since last report:
3.1.1.
General QAG
·
Appointed new co-convenor: Harriet MacLehose has replaced
Phil Alderson as co-convenor of QAG. We are grateful to Phil for the enormous
contribution he made to QAG
·
Advertised for nominations for the Cochrane Visiting
Fellowship
·
Provided advise to PPG re response to inaccuracy in a
published review
3.1.2.
Style Guide Working Group
·
Submitted revised budget to CCSG exec for maintenance of the
Style Guide
·
Continued to maintain Style Guide and web site
·
Full annual report from Style Guide working group due for
Melbourne meeting
3.1.3.
CRG resource website working group (full annual report
appended)
·
Working party has begun refining the site to include one or
two generic resources to support good practice for all steps of review
production from expression of interest to updating.
·
Finalised title registration form (appended)
·
Compiled list of resources to develop (appended)
·
Addition of wish list for CRGs to make suggestions of
resources to develop
3.2.
Actions planned for next six months
3.2.1.
General QAG
·
Revise membership: the membership of QAG has been constant
for many years and members were asked at the Ottawa meeting to consider a
rotating system of terms. This will be formalised in the next six months
3.2.2.
Style Guide Working Group
·
Continue maintenance of Style Guide
·
Design brief version of Style Guide for review authors
3.2.3.
CRG resource website
·
Design and implement expression of interest form
·
Conduct planned evaluation of site
4.
Does your
Advisory Group have any questions that you would like the Steering Group to
answer? If so, please list them.
Proposed as separate paper to CCSG
(Training resources website).
5.
Does your
Advisory Group wish to raise any problems, and recommended solutions, which you
would like the Steering Group to discuss?
If so, please list them:
No.
6.
Do you
foresee any problems in keeping within the budget you submitted for the current
financial year (April 2004 to March 2005)?
No.
7.
What are your budgetary requirements for the period
April 2005 to March 2006? Please
provide a breakdown if appropriate. (As
a reminder, the Steering Group sets the budget for each Group at its
non-Colloquium meeting.)
The 2004-5 QAG budget of £1000 is appropriate for supporting QAG core
activities in the coming year, including telephone meetings of the co-convenors
and any expenses associated with meetings at the Colloquium. The style guide
working group is supported from a separate budget (put to CCSG exec meeting in
March 2005).
The members of the CRG resource website working group give of their time
voluntarily. The convenor (Sarah Hetrick) is supported through the ACC.
Teleconferences between Group members are supported from the core QAG budget.
Sally Green and Harriet MacLehose, Co-Convenors, 28 February
2005.
Sarah
Hetrick and Sally Green
Purpose:
To summarise the
outcome of the project to build a resource web site based on the Quality
Improvement Managers (QIM) Report.
Project
Aims:
Progress:
Strategies
and resources have been compiled, and made available as the CRG procedures
collection on the Cochrane website. The website is password protected and has
been made available to RGCs, TSCs and coordinating editors.
As part of
the second stage of the project, to develop good practice resources, a
working group, representative of CRGs has been established. The working group
includes:
-
Jane
Cracknell
-
Sonja
Henderson
-
Sarah
Hetrick
-
Tina
Leonard
-
Ruth
Mitchell
-
Theresa
Moore
-
Megan
Prictor
-
Narelle
Willis
The working
party has limited its scope to those resources involved in the production of a
review, from the expression of interest stage through to the update stage. It
has developed an outline of the steps involved in the production of the review
and the associated resources.
A pilot has
been undertaken to establish the best process for developing good practice
resources. The entire working party contributed to the development of a generic
title registration form, the content of which has been finalized (appended).
Before publication on the website, the document will be created as an
interactive document, allowing CRGs to modify it for their own group, and
allowing for potential authors to fill in the form electronically. Instructions
for how to fill in each section will appear in pop-up boxes (text is
appended) It will also be circulated to CRGs and to QAG for comment before it
is published.
Additionally,
a list has been compiled of the resources that need to be developed where none
has previously existed i.e. no examples from any CRG. These resources will be
need to be developed from start to finish and will involve additional time and
resource.
A wish
list/suggestion list has been added to the website so that CRGs can contribute
to the site, particularly important while the work to develop good practice
resources is being undertaken.
Finally,
this project has informed ongoing efforts to improve the quality of editorial
processes in The Collaboration. This has been due to liaison with EMAG (who
have co-opted a member of the working group) with particular contribution to
developing work flows for the IMS, presentation to and discussion with the RCG
group about consistency of editorial process, and consultation to such groups
as the CCSG working group on updating.
It is
anticipated that once the IMS has established standardized workflows for the
editorial process, the good practice resource documents, developed as part of
this project, could be integrated into this system.
Time line:
The good
practice resource documents for the expression of interest and title
registration stage of the editorial process will be completed by October 2005.
Planned evaluation
APPENDIX II: Draft of Good Practice Title Registration
Form
The
Cochrane [ADD
GROUPS NAME]
Group
Proposal for a new
Cochrane Review
Please complete and email this form to EMAIL
ADDRESS
(GROUP TO ADD THEIR EMAIL
CONTACT).
[NAME, Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane XXX Group, POSTAL ADDRESS. PH. +XX XXXXXXXXXX Fax: +XX XXXXXXXXXX]
GROUPS TO ADD THEIR CONTACT DETAILS
|
Authors completing this form must note that they are
required to read and follow The Cochrane Reviewers Handbook in preparing
their review http://www.cochrane.org/resources/handbook/index.htm |
|
Proposed Title |
|
Description of
proposal (a)
Objective (b)
Rationale for review (suggested length # [GROUP TO ADD] paragraphs) (c)
Types of study See
section 4.2.4 of the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook (d)
Participants See
section 4.2.3 of the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook (e)
Interventions and specific comparisons
to be made See
section 4.2.2 of the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook (f)
Outcomes See
section 4.2.3 of the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook (g)
What subgroup analysis do you intend to
undertake? See
section 8.8 of the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook (h) Other information relevant to this proposal |
|
Proposed authors |
|
|
Contact author name: |
|
|
Co-author(s) name(s): |
|
|
Do you or your
co-authors have any interests in this topic that could be perceived as
conflicts of interest? See
section 2.2 of the Cochrane Reviewers Handbook If yes, what are
they? Is this review the
subject of specific funding and/or timing. If yes, please give details. Has the review
already been carried out or published? If yes, where has
it been published? |
|
|
Role and responsibilities |
|
|
TASK |
WHO HAS
AGREED TO UNDERTAKE THE TASK? |
|
Draft the protocol |
|
|
Search for trials (usually 2 people) |
|
|
Obtain copies of trials |
|
|
Select which trials to include (2 + 1 arbiter) |
|
|
Extract data from trials (2 people) |
|
|
Enter data into RevMan |
|
|
Carry out the analysis |
|
|
Interpret the analysis |
|
|
Draft the final review |
|
|
Update the review |
|
|
Other information, and assistance
requested |
|
|
Have you or a co-author written a systematic
review before? |
Yes/No |
|
If yes, was it a Cochrane Review? |
Yes/No |
|
Do you have a copy of the Cochrane Reviewers
Handbook? |
Yes/No |
|
Have you attended a Cochrane review training
workshop? |
Yes/No |
|
If yes, which one? |
|
|
If no, are you planning to? Which one? |
|
|
Do you have a copy of RevMan 4.2.7, the
Cochrane Review Manager software? |
Yes/No |
|
Have you seen the Cochrane X Review Group
website? |
Yes/No |
|
Do you have ready access to email and the
internet? |
Yes/No |
|
Do you require assistance with: English
as a second language? Using RevMan 4.2.7? Access
to data on The Cochrane Library? Translation
of articles? Training? Access to a statistician (strongly
recommended)? Contact
with consumer groups? Seeking
funding/scholarship support? |
Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No |
|
Would you like to be assigned a mentor
(experienced authors who have volunteered to help new authors) |
Yes/No |
|
Provisional dates for submission of drafts to
editorial base (A)
Draft
PROTOCOL
.
.. (B) Draft REVIEW .
. |
|
By
completing this title registration form, you agree to submit a draft protocol
within # [GROUP TO ADD NUMBER] months. If there is no correspondence from you
during this period, or no draft protocol has been received, the Cochrane
Review Group reserves the right to de-register the title or transfer the
title to a new author. By
completing and returning this form, you are accepting responsibility for
maintaining and updating the review in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration
policy, i.e. you will be responsible for ensuring the review is updated at
least every two years. If you are unable to update this review the Review
Group reserves the right to transfer the review to a new author.
I understand the long-term commitment
necessary when undertaking a Cochrane Review. Form completed by:
Date:
.
|
|
Details of contact
author |
||||||
|
Title (e.g.
Professor, Mr, Mrs, etc): |
..
|
|||||
|
First Name: |
|
Last Name: |
..
.
|
|||
|
Job Title/Position: |
..
|
|||||
|
Department: |
..
|
|||||
|
Organisation: |
..
|
|||||
|
Address |
..
|
|||||
|
City: |
..
|
|||||
|
Region/State: |
.
. |
|||||
|
Country: |
|
Post/Zip code: |
.
|
|||
|
Telephone number: |
|
Fax number: |
.. |
|||
|
Email address: |
.
..
|
|||||
|
Details of co-authors
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Title (e.g.
Professor, Mr, Mrs, etc): |
..
|
||||
|
First Name: |
|
Last Name: |
..
.
|
||
|
Job Title/Position: |
..
|
||||
|
Department: |
..
|
||||
|
Organisation: |
..
|
||||
|
Address |
..
|
||||
|
City: |
..
|
||||
|
Region/State: |
.
. |
||||
|
Country: |
|
Post/Zip code: |
.
|
||
|
Telephone number: |
|
Fax number: |
.. |
||
|
Email address: |
.
..
|
||||
Thank you for completing this form.
|
For office use only 1. Approved title: 2. Approved by:
(a) Name: Role
.
Date approved
.
.
(b) Name:
. Role:
. Date approved
3. Review number: 4. Contact identifiers: 5. Date registered in IMS:
.. 6. Notes (eg, CRGs who will provide referees) |
APPENDIX
IIa: Draft of hidden text for
Good Practice Title Registration Form
Note to CRGs:
1. There is
text throughout the document that needs to be modified or added as appropriate
for the CRG.
2. CRGs can delete, modify or move sections
as appropriate for their CRG.
There is a
standard format for Cochrane Titles:
[intervention] FOR [health problem/ issue] e.g. antibiotics
for infection
[intervention A] VERSUS [intervention B] FOR [health problem/ issue] e.g. short term
versus long term antibiotics for infection
[intervention] FOR [health problem/issue] IN [participant group] e.g. antibiotics for
infection in children
[GROUPS TO
ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]
Your proposal
should not overlap with reviews already published or underway. Please refer to
the protocols and reviews currently published in the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane
Library for this information. To identify our Groups publications, use the
search term
[GROUPS TO ADD THEIR SPECIFIC SEARCH TERM.]
(For Objective)
What is the research question?
(For Rationale for review)
Explain why the review is important. You may provide citations of
relevant papers.
(For Types of study)
Outline the types of studies that will be included in the review. Give
thought to whether there are aspects of study methodology that you feel render
the study invalid for inclusion, e.g. lack of randomisation, failure to conceal
allocation or, in reviews where the outcomes are very subjective (e.g. global
assessment of improvement or levels of depression), blinding of the outcome
assessor.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]
(For Participants)
Outline the types of populations to be included and excluded, with
thought given to aspects of the participants receiving the intervention, e.g.
age and gender, the type/stage of disease/condition, the method of diagnosis,
and co-morbidities.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]
(For Interventions and specific comparisons to be
made)
Outline what variations of the intervention (e.g. dose, mode of
delivery, who delivers it) will be included and the intervention will be
compared to e.g. placebo or no treatment, or other interventions.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]
(For Outcomes)
List primary (the main conclusions will be based on the primary
outcomes) and secondary outcomes to be included in the review, giving thought
to those likely to be important to those suffering the disorder as well as
those treating them. Give thought to the inclusion of adverse effects. Finally,
give some thought to how your outcomes may be measured, both the type of scale
or count likely to be used and the timing of the measurement.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]
(For What subgroup analysis do you intend to
undertake?)
Will certain factors be investigated for their
influence on the size of the treatment effect, e.g. dose of active treatment?
(For Other information relevant to this proposal)
e.g. relevance of review to consumers, and ideas for consumer input
into review.
[GROUPS CAN ADD THEIR OWN EXAMPLES.]
List names of those
who will be cited as authors on the final publication
This is the person who develops and co-ordinate the
review team, discusses and assigns roles for individual members of the review
team, liaises with the editorial base and takes responsibility for the on-going
updates of the review.
There should be at least one co-author (add as many names as
necessary).
Cochrane Reviews
should be free of any real or perceived bias introduced by the receipt of any
benefit in cash or kind, any hospitality, or any subsidy derived from any
source that may have or be perceived to have an interest in the outcome of the
review. It is a matter of Cochrane Collaboration policy that direct funding from
a single source with a vested interest in the results of the review is not
acceptable.
It is the contact authors responsibility to discuss and
assign roles for individual members of the review team and to develop the review
team to ensure that there is provision for the review to be updated, even if
the contact author cannot continue in this role. Whilst keeping in mind that
roles may change during the preparation of the review, it is important to
discuss at an early stage how each co-author will contribute. Please give an
indication that the responsibility for the preparation of the review is in hand
by specifying who has agreed to complete the following tasks.
Other
information
Please answer
yes or no.
Titles must
be approved by the editorial team before you start to prepare the
protocol/review. Note that the policy
of the group, in accordance with that of The Cochrane Collaboration requires
that you submit your protocol within # months of registering the title, and
that the review is submitted within # months of the protocol
being
published.
Copy
and paste this box to include more co-authors as required.
APPENDIX III:
List of resources to be
developed where none has previously existed
There are
currently no strategies and resources for 16.3 Tracking How Search Results Get
Used in Reviews.