[Minutes approved on 21 May 2002]

1. Welcomes, apologies for absence, introductions and approval of the agenda
   Peter Langhorne welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies for absence had been received from Elena Telaro and David Wilkinson. The agenda was approved. Peter reminded everyone that the minutes of the previous full Steering Group meeting held in Lyon in October 2001 had been approved by the Executive on 20 November 2001.
2. The Chris Silagy Prize and Fund
   David H-S reported that the Fund currently amounts to 20,000 Australian dollars, and that an annual prize of 1,000 Australian dollars is envisaged. It was agreed that the Prize should be awarded for "an outstanding contribution" rather than for a contribution "beyond the call of duty". The Fund was set up at the wish of and to commemorate Chris Silagy (a key member of the Cochrane Collaboration and former Chair of the Steering Group) and the Prize would always be awarded to a member of the Collaboration. It was agreed that it would be appropriate for the Collaboration to make a contribution towards this Prize from core funds by paying the registration, travel and accommodation expenses for each year's winner to attend the Colloquium at which they would be given the Prize. David H-S agreed to represent the Steering Group on the panel for this Prize, and to report back the Steering Group's discussion and decision to the panel.
   Action: David H-S
   
3. Matters arising from minutes of the previous meeting, not on this agenda
   
   Item 2.26 - Revisions to the Constitution: It was agreed to wait until after the next meeting of the Steering Group in Stavanger before revising the Constitution, by which time the Steering Group would anticipate a Chief Executive Officer being in post (see items 7 and 8.3). It was also noted that the revised Constitution would need formal approval at the Annual General Meeting of the Cochrane Collaboration, and that there was not enough time for this to happen this year.
   
   Item 2.15 - Cost of producing individual reviews: Chris Williams had agreed to produce a paper on this for discussion by the Steering Group. Jini was asked to remind Chris to prepare this in time for discussion by the Steering Group in Stavanger.
   Action: Jini
4. Report from the Treasurer:

4.1 Tables of Contingency and Discretionary Fund expenditure: Mike reported on the expenditure from the Contingency and Discretionary Funds in the financial year to 31 March 2002. In light of the Collaboration entering a new financial year, Kathie Clark agreed to send out a reminder via CCInfo about the existence of the Discretionary Fund, together with the criteria for applying. This fund would continue to be limited to a total annual expenditure of £10,000 sterling, and applications would be dealt with as they arrive (i.e. on a first-come, first-served basis). With regard to the Contingency Fund, the Steering Group had already agreed that a contribution of £10,000 sterling would be made from this Fund towards consumer and developing country stipends to attend the Stavanger Colloquium. This would come from the budget for the current financial year (i.e. 2002/2003).
Action: Kathie

4.2 Spreadsheet of current financial situation: Mike explained the current financial situation of the Collaboration. It was agreed to consider committing expenditure on Collaboration-wide activities that are judged to be of high priority. A running total of these commitments would be kept during the meeting, and reassessed towards the end of it. At the end of the meeting the Steering Group reassessed the activities that they had agreed were priorities for expenditure (listed in item 8.3), and confirmed their decision to go ahead and fund those items.

5. Choosing a Chair of the Steering Group
   Peter reminded everyone that at the Steering Group meeting in Lyon he had asked anyone to come forward who felt able to take on this role when he steps down at the Annual General Meeting in August 2002. Mike Clarke and Jim Neilson volunteered to take on this responsibility as Co-Chairs, and the Steering Group were asked to think about this overnight. They agreed at their meeting the following day to elect Mike and Jim to this role. It was agreed that the succession process between Chairs should be more formally planned in the future, and should bear in mind the diversity of membership of the Cochrane Collaboration. Davina agreed to include information about how the Chair is replaced in the draft document she has been working on which describes the electoral process for the Steering Group, to be discussed by the Group in Stavanger. Mike will cease to be the Methods Group representative when he becomes Co-Chair of the Steering Group, and the Secretariat will initiate an election for someone to replace him in this role.
   Action: Davina, Claire
6. CCSG and Cochrane Collaboration priorities
   (planning priorities and revised strategic plan)
   The Steering Group broke up into three small groups to scrutinise in detail the changes that Peter had suggested for the Collaboration's existing Strategic Plan. The small groups were asked to make suggestions for revisions to the Plan, in the light of existing and future priorities. There was discussion of the general conclusions from each group, and one member from each group agreed to give suggestions for specific amendments to Peter. He will incorporate suggested changes and circulate the revised Strategic Plan to the Steering Group by the end of April 2002. This will allow time for wide consultation within the Cochrane Collaboration, before it can be formally presented during the Stavanger Colloquium. The implementation of the Plan will be discussed at the next meeting of the Steering Group in Stavanger.
   Action: David H-S, Jim, Ruth, Peter
   
7. Draft job description for a possible Chief Executive Officer
   It was agreed that the Collaboration should fund this position, with the aim of employing someone by the end of 2002. A working group was set up to prepare the job description, person specification, and terms and conditions of employment. This working group will include Kathie Clark, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Peter Langhorne, Jim Neilson, and one of the directors of the Collaboration Trading Company, by whom this person would be employed. Mike will contact Jos Kleijnen about which director will join the working group. The information prepared by this working group will be discussed by the full Steering Group at its next meeting in Stavanger with the hope of beginning the recruitment process shortly after the Colloquium. Peter agreed to investigate whether it would be sensible to employ professional help in identifying suitable candidates for the position.
   Action: Mike, Peter
   
8. Funding priorities within the Cochrane Collaboration:

18. Code of conduct
    Peter explained that Tom Jefferson had contacted him, expressing his concerns about the behaviour of some Collaboration members, in particular in relation to the publication of the October 2001 BMJ article on the quality of Cochrane Reviews. In addition, Tom had written that this article had almost resulted in the loss of funding for his entity. Gerd reported that the Centre Directors had agreed to prepare a document for discussion in Stavanger on the need for Centre staff to behave responsibly in what they publish using the Collaboration's name. The working group established to prepare this document consists of Gerd, Peter Gøtzsche, Alessandro Liberati and Drummond Rennie. Mike agreed to ask the Methods Groups to discuss guidelines on the conduct and dissemination of research into the work of the Cochrane Collaboration that is done by participants in the Cochrane Collaboration, during their meetings in Stavanger. These guidelines should take account of the concerns of the Steering Group that criticism of the Cochrane Collaboration, or its members, should not be unnecessarily damaging to the work of the Collaboration.
    Action: Gerd, Mike
19. Should all entity contact people be arbitrarily subscribed to CCInfo?
    It was agreed that it would not be advisable to force all entity contact people to subscribe to CCInfo as a means of preventing the need to send official notices to the relevant list(s) of entity contact people. However, entity representatives agreed to encourage the contact people in their constituent entities strongly to join the CCInfo e-mail discussion list, so as not to miss out on important information disseminated via that method alone.
    Action: Everyone
    
20. Involvement by developing countries in the Cochrane Collaboration
    Youping Li advised that she would step down from being the Co-Convenor of the working group on developing countries at the Stavanger Colloquium, when she leaves the Steering Group, although she is still keen to remain involved in the group. (Xavier Bonfill of the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre is her Co-Convenor.) Youping recommended that the Steering Group should always have two representatives from developing countries on this working group. People from developing countries should be involved in the whole process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane Reviews, including as end users, in mapping out the areas of health care where reviews are needed, consulting with consumers, and producing a target list of the reviews that need doing in developing countries: the challenge is to work out how to achieve these aims. Youping was asked to consult with the members of the working group and produce a draft remit for it to become a formal advisory group to the Steering Group, including a budget, for discussion at the next Steering Group meeting in Stavanger. The group would be expected to liaise with the Monitoring and Registration Group in identifying common themes for action. Youping also reported that she hoped to translate Gold Nuggets into Chinese twice a year. She also asked whether the Cochrane logo could be adapted for use in China, and she will send a request about this to the Publishing Policy Group.
    Action: Youping
    
21. Strategy for forming alliances with international organisations
    It was agreed that discussion of this should be deferred until the next Steering Group meeting in Stavanger.
    Action: Jini
    
22. Inclusion of information on adverse events in Cochrane Reviews
    It was re-affirmed that outcomes related to safety belong within Cochrane Reviews. Mike agreed to ask the submitters of this request to provide suggestions, through the relevant subgroup of the Non-randomised Studies Methods Group, on how to ensure that information on safety can be included in Cochrane Reviews in as unbiased a way as possible.
    Action: Mike
    
23. Future of the French Cochrane Centre
    Mike informed the Steering Group of the current lack of funding for the French Cochrane Centre, which had necessitated its temporary closure. It was agreed that Peter would contact Jean-Pierre Boissel as soon as possible to clarify the duration of this closure. If it was indefinite or likely to be prolonged, Peter was asked to suggest to Jean-Pierre that the Centre should be de-registered so that other people who might be interested in meeting the needs of contributors in France and the other French-speaking countries for which the Centre has had responsibility could come forward. Peter will tell Jean-Pierre of the Canadian Cochrane Centre's offer of assistance to French-speaking contributors in Canada. Peter also agreed to ask Alessandro Liberati if enquiries from potential French-speaking contributors in Europe could be directed to the Italian Cochrane Centre in the interim.
    Action: Peter
24. Steering Group meetings in Stavanger, Norway, 31 July and 3 August 2002
    It was agreed that the agenda for the next Steering Group meeting in Stavanger needed to be carefully organised to ensure that best use is made of the limited amount of time available. Consideration should be given to the Steering Group having longer mid-year meetings in future (see item 39.7).
    Action: Peter, Mike, Jim, Jini
    
25. Format of the Cochrane Collaboration's Annual General Meetings
    Clarification should be sought from the hosts of the Stavanger Colloquium as to how much time has been allocated for the Annual General Meetings and the other events involving the Steering Group. The Executive should decide in their telephone conference on 21 May 2002 how to use this time, while fulfilling the legal obligations of the charity and the trading company. In the Annual General Meetings, entity representatives should be asked to sit at the front of the room to make it easier to establish their role in the meeting. An explanation should be given at the beginning of the meeting as to its purpose and structure. Questions will be requested in advance, so that the Steering Group can prepare for these and any other questions that it expects will be asked. In advance of these meetings, it should be made clear to entity representatives that it is their responsibility to circulate the Report and Financial Statements to their constituents and that they should request feedback on issues of interest or concern so that these can be raised during the Annual General Meetings. It was agreed that the separate plenary session during the Colloquium (3 August 2002) could be used for short presentations on the annual survey of activity within the Cochrane Collaboration and the revised Strategic Plan.
    Action: Jini
26. Reports and budgets from Steering Group sub/advisory groups and liaisons:
    
    26.1 General availability of Advisory Group reports: It was agreed that the six-monthly reports to the Steering Group by its sub- and advisory groups should be made available within the Cochrane Collaboration. Mike volunteered to investigate the possibility of making these available on the Collaboration website. This decision, together with thanks for their reports, would be conveyed to all Advisory Groups.
    Action: Mike
    
    26.2 Monitoring and Registration Group: The Co-Convenors of this Group, Samuel and Ruth, spoke to this report, emphasizing that the heavy workload makes it difficult to perform as effectively as the members would wish; also, they have insufficient time to identify and correct any problems with the process. Peter expressed appreciation for the huge amount of work that the Group has accomplished in the past year, with support from Claire Allen. There has been some harsh criticism about this year's survey of activity within the Cochrane Collaboration because of the increased number of questions being asked of Collaborative Review Groups in particular. Ruth pointed out that these questions had been added in response to criticisms in 2001 that entities were not given adequate opportunity to provide qualitative, in addition to quantitative answers. Mike suggested that the next year could be used to assess and improve the process, and to act on the findings from this year's survey, instead of conducting another annual survey on the same scale as this year's. Ruth and Samuel agreed to discuss this suggestion at the meeting of the Monitoring and Registration Group in May 2002, so that recommendations could be made at the next meeting of the Steering Group in Stavanger.
    Action: Ruth, Samuel
    
    26.3 CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group: Davina was asked to request that the Group provide the Executive with an estimate for the cost of temporary storage of old handsearch results at the New England Cochrane Center in Providence, for discussion at the Executive's telephone conference on 21 May 2002. It was agreed that the Group should present two proposals for funding to the next meeting of the Steering Group in Stavanger: a retrospective project to rectify problems within CENTRAL, and a budget for the ongoing operational costs of CENTRAL that cannot be met with funds currently available to the New England Cochrane Center.
    Action: Davina
    
    26.4 Cochrane Library Users' Group: The requested budget was approved.
    
    26.5 Colloquium Policy Advisory Group: The recommendations not to centralise the financial administration of the Thomas C Chalmers MD Award and the Kenneth Warren Prize were approved; it was agreed to approve the setting up of standing committees to administer the disbursement of these funds. Two Steering Group members should be on the local organising committee of each Colloquium, to ensure adequate liaison: members should be selected who will not have left the Steering Group before the relevant Colloquium. David and Silvana agreed to do this for the Ottawa Colloquium. Jini was asked to let the organisers of the Barcelona Colloquium in 2003 know that Samuel and Vittorio were willing to be on their local organising committee, and to advise Sally Green of this new decision in relation to the proposed Melbourne Colloquium of 2005. The question of whether central funds should be made available to future Colloquia organisers was referred to the Centre Directors for advice. The Group's requested budget was approved.
    Action: David H-S, Silvana; Jini; Gerd 
    
    26.5.1 Consumer stipends: The Steering Group felt that there should be a standing committee for consumer stipends, and that the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group should be encouraged to discuss establishing one. Both Consumer Network representatives on the Steering Group should be members of such a committee. Subject to the amendment of the relevant sections of the draft document entitled 'Consumer Stipends for Colloquia', it was approved. The CPAG should be asked for advice as to how members of each year's stipends committee could be funded to attend the Colloquium themselves (because membership of this committee makes them ineligible for these stipends).
    Action: Mike
    
    26.5.2 Standard operating procedures for Colloquia: It was agreed that the priority for action by the CPAG was the development of a list of things that Colloquium organisers need to bear in mind when organising the Colloquium (for example, how to decide on the registration fee; when and how to seek sponsorship; how and when to set the dates for abstracts, stipend applications and early/late registration; which are the key meetings that need to be scheduled into the main programme). Such a list of standard operating procedures should prove very helpful to the organisers of future Colloquia. Kathie agreed to convey these decisions to the CPAG.
    Action: Kathie
    
    26.6 Criticism Management Advisory Group: The Group should be asked to clarify whether their comment that it would be preferable to change the name of the Group to 'Feedback Management Advisory Group' was a formal request to change their name. If so they should be asked to identify places within the Collaboration where the word 'Criticism' would need to be replaced with 'Feedback', to enable the Steering Group to consider the implications of approving this change of name.
    Action: David H-S
    
    26.7 Handbook Advisory Group: The following four recommendations were approved, and Mike was asked to include relevant guidance in the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook:
    (i) Withdrawn protocols: A withdrawal notice should be published within CDSR for one issue of The Cochrane Library. Thereafter, the withdrawal of the protocol would be noted in the CRG's module; (ii) Suspension of reviews that have become too out-of-date, are known to contain serious errors, or are suspended while they go through the editorial process of a new group: A suspension notice should be included in the Published Notes section; (iii) Withdrawal of reviews that have been merged with other reviews: A notice should be included in the Published Notes section of the review that has been withdrawn; and (iv) Splitting of reviews: One of the reviews should retain the unique identifier for the original review.
    The Steering Group endorsed the suggested principles governing the availability of the flexible learning material produced by Phil Alderson and Sally Green, but asked that it should be stated that it should be made available on a cost recovery basis (rather than completely free of charge). Mike was asked to thank Phil and Sally for all their hard work in producing this valuable material.
    Action: Mike
    
    26.8 Information Management System Group: The Steering Group approved the recommendation that reviewers should be allowed to include additional figures in Cochrane Reviews; it also approved the recommendation of the Technical Implementation Advisory Group that open standards with good data compression be used. The requested budget was approved.
    
    26.9 Quality Advisory Group: The Steering Group requested that there should be a repository of all the material accumulating on the quality of reviews, and Nancy referred to her current work with Philippa Middleton on a joint mapping project that will meet this request. The requested budget was approved.
    
    26.10 Cochrane-Campbell liaison: The contents of the paper by Lisa Bero, liaison between the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations, were noted and appreciated.
    
    26.11 Other reports: It was agreed to include reports from the Funders' Forum and the Publishing Policy Group with the agendas of meetings of the Steering Group in the future.
    Action: Jini
27. Advice for dealing with the media
    Mike advised that this draft document was subject to regular revision. Any comments on its content should be sent to him. He will circulate a revised document to the Steering Group when it is ready.
    Action: Mike
28. Conflicts of interest:
    
    28.1 Conflicts of interest and the Cochrane Collaboration: The contents of Hilda Bastian's papers on conflict of interest and membership of the Steering Group and its sub- and advisory groups were noted and appreciated. It was agreed that each Steering Group meeting should begin with an explicit statement of any relevant conflicts of interest by each member, and that these should be included in the minutes. This would be piloted at the next meeting of the Steering Group in Stavanger and, if judged to be workable, would be recommended to all sub- and advisory groups. As an example, Jini will circulate by e-mail to the Steering Group the relevant item in the minutes of the Information Management System Group, which already begins each meeting in this way.
    Action: Jini
    
    28.2 Conflicts of interest in commercial sponsorship of Cochrane Reviews: It was agreed that the person or institution that originally devised the question for a Cochrane Review should be noted within the review. This was felt to be particularly important for reviews that had funding from the pharmaceutical industry. It was agreed that the right of reviewers to publish their Cochrane Review regardless of the opinion of the funder of that review should be written into the policy on conflicts of interest. It was agreed that the current policy that a Cochrane Review must not be funded solely from a single source with a vested interested in the review should be restated.
    Action: Mike