Minutes of ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) Meeting held 1130-1600 on Wednesday, 01 December 1999 at the UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford

Present: Jane Dennis, Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson (chair and minutes), Katherine Henshaw, Reive Robb, Lois Sims

In attendance: Monica Kundan from Update Softare

Contents:
Welcome and apologies
Approval of minutes of last meeting
Matters arising from previous minutes not on this agenda
Update on ModMan 4
ModMan wishlist
ModMan documentation and training
Next generation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Information Management System
Any other business
Date of next meeting

Welcome and apologies

Apologies received from Graham Mowatt and Phil Wiffen.

Approval of minutes of last meeting

[Previous meeting held 1730-1930 in Rome, Italy on Monday, 4 October 1999]

Jane was thanked for drafting the minutes of the last meeting. The minutes were approved.

Matters arising from previous minutes not on this agenda

• 2a: Monica reported that no further resources would be put into developing HIREx. See item 8.3 for details of future developments.

• 2b: As there was still no information about the progress of the development of the guidelines for completion of the contributors’ text box, Sonja offered to phone Chris Williams.

  ACTION: Sonja to phone Chris Williams

• 2c: Sonja reported that she had spoken to Mark Starr requesting that an explanation of the HM and SR codes be given in The Cochrane Library so that users are clear as to their relevance and use. She will speak to him again to see if this will be happening in the next issue of The Cochrane Library.

  ACTION: Sonja to ask Mark if this is in place for the next issue of The Cochrane Library.

• 2d: Monica had not received feedback from the San Antonio CC yet but it was agreed that it was no longer appropriate to request this.

• 2e: Lois confirmed that it had not been possible to incorporate ‘coloured’ markers in the current version of ModMan 4 to identify, for example, when reviews become overdue. If people feel that this is an important item for consideration for future developments, it should be added to the wishlist.

• 2f: Sonja confirmed that ModMan allows the RGC to enter the probable issue number of The Cochrane Library in which the review for a protocol will be published and not the ‘date next stage expected’ that the reviewer gives in RevMan.

• 4: Monica had provided Kate with Jacob Riis’s email address at the Nordic Cochrane Centre as the compiler of the ModMan wishlist.

• 5: Monica reported that Mike Clarke had been asked to take responsibility for the Module guidelines as they are closely linked to the policies and guidelines in the reviewers’ Handbook, but he has still to confirm this.

Update on ModMan 4

Lois confirmed that there were no plans for revisions to ModMan at present. The bugs discovered after it was first released have now been fixed with a patch and there have been no reports of any more serious bugs. Update Software believes that it is now stable. The following is the procedure for future ModMan recommendations:

• Items for the wishlist should be sent to Jacob Riis.
• Jacob Riis will collate the items and submit them, on request, to MAG for consideration.
• MAG to make their recommendations to the Software Development Group (SDG).
• The SDG will then forward the agreed recommendations to Update Software.

ModMan wishlist

Sonja reported that she had asked RGCs in preparation for the meeting and the development of the wishlist to send her comments or wishes for consideration at the MAG meeting. Sonja had received 4 replies. It was agreed that these would be discussed in turn by the MAG team and the items identified as wishlist items would be forwarded to Jacob Riis as described in the procedure outlined in item 4 above. The MAG members would also prioritise them through discussion. Members of MAG would have the opportunity to add to this list during the meeting.

Summary of wishes received for future development of ModMan:

REVIEW TRACKING:

Comments received:


• Not meeting individual needs
• Not flexible
• Can’t print out general notes
Response from MAG:
Although none of the MAG members had extensively tested the tracking facilities in ModMan, it was agreed that it did not appear to be flexible enough to allow the detailed tracking that many groups required. It was recognised and agreed that the main purpose of ModMan is to submit the module information and approved protocols and reviews for publication. Sonja suggested that the development of a tracking system, separate from ModMan, should be considered by the CC. She said that the tracking of reviews is a very important issue for RGCs at the moment and it reminded her of the problems RGCs faced with their specialised register of trials that eventually resulted in the development of Meerkat. Lois advised that there were several software tracking packages available for testing/adapting. It was agreed that there is a need for a complete evaluation of the software options available but that this should be done at Collaboration level so that RGCs do not duplicate time, effort and work.

ACTION: Sonja to take this recommendation to the SDG.

MODULE STATUS REPORT:

Comments received:
(a) The date given on the report (date included) is of limited use to RGCs.
(b) Break for new page for protocols
(c) Although it is helpful to have the names of all reviewers for a published protocol or review on the status report, there is a need for the contact reviewer to be identified easily as the first reviewer may not be the contact reviewer.
(d) To have the review number on the status report.
(e) To be able to export the status report electronically (html file)
Response from MAG:
(a) Agree. The preference of the MAG team is to replace this date with the date the review was last updated - HIGH PRIORITY.
(b) LOW PRIORITY
(c) Agree. HIGH PRIORITY.
(d) Agree. MEDIUM PRIORITY.
(e) Agree. HIGH PRIORITY.

MODULE TEXT

Comments received:
(a) To be able to export the text of the Module to an html file.
(b) Spell checker
Responses from MAG:
(a) Agree - HIGH PRIORITY.
(b) Discussion took place about the usefulness of the spellchecker in RevMan. It was agreed that if the text of the Module could be exported electronically then spell checking could be easily done outside of ModMan. This was, therefore, given a LOW PRIORITY.

TITLES

Comments received:
To print out the reviews with the status ‘title’ with one ‘click’.
Response from MAG:
Agree. LOW PRIORITY.

HELP FACILITY

Comments received:
The help facility (index) could be a bit more extensive.
Response from MAG:
See item 6.1 below.

CONTACT DETAILS

Comments received:
Is it necessary to give all contacts in ModMan a unique identifer?
Response from Lois:
Yes, this is the way databases work. It is required to create links with other parts of the database.

Additional wishes discussed:

1. Contact details

   When information is given that the contact details being imported into ModMan are different to those already held in ModMan, you cannot compare the same section of the contact details on screen. As soon as you move to the other set of contact details, the first one scrolls back up to the top - HIGH PRIORITY.

2. Contact details

   When using the drop down list of contacts, the name that appears on the picklist does not always belong to the person whose contact details are shown on the screen below. The screen has to be refreshed.

   ACTION: Lois to investigate as this may be a bug rather than a wishlist item.

3. To include tables in the search strategy section of the Module as described in the guidelines.

   Lois said that this would not be easy to implement and questioned the need for this. It had come about at the suggestion of the New England Cochrane Centre when feeding back to CRGs on this part of their module content at the beginning of the year. It was proposed that rather than split the information about journal handsearching between group modules, it was agreed that a proposal should be put forward to suggest that the full list of journals, handsearched by contributors to the Collaboration, be submitted by the New England Cochrane Centre for publication as a separate item in the Cochrane Library. This would mean that the list of journals searched by contributors to individual groups could be removed from CRG modules.

   ACTION: Sonja to forward this recommendation to the Publishing and Policy Group.

Additional wishes not discussed:

1. The option to list the reviews on the status report alphabetically as well as by reviewer.

2. To print all the contact details in ModMan at one time rather than individually.

ModMan documentation and training

1. Sonja said that she felt there was a need for more detailed documentation and training on ModMan, particularly for new RGCs. For example, there had been a request for the documentation in the Help file within ModMan to be more extensive. As nobody within the current MAG team can dedicate time to this task, Kate suggested that she ask the RGC Action Group to take this on board and to communicate with RGCs to find out their requirements. Any materials developed by the RGC Action Group could be sent to MAG for feedback before general release. As Kate is a member of both the Action Group and MAG, it was considered appropriate that Kate become the ‘link’ person. Kate kindly agreed to take this forward.

   ACTION: Kate to put proposal to RGC Action Group

2. Signposts document

   Kate was thanked for her work on improving the ModMan information contained in the signposts document. There were 2 further suggestions:

   • That the contact details be added for the person responsible for the ModMan wishlist.
   • Under ‘ModMan support’, the words ‘module content’ be removed from the second description.

Next generation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Information Management System

Monica introduced the draft proposal for the next generation of the Cochrane Collaboration’s Information Management System. She explained that the system at the moment involves several separate pieces of software, which impact on each other. Monica suggested that there would be less risk of error and the overall system would work better if they were integrated.

Monica briefly explained how she envisages the new system working:

It would be an integrated Internet-based system that would be based around the new contacts database (see item 8.3) in that this would be the first place an RGC would go when somebody is ready to start working on the protocol for a review. The RGC would assign the contact identifier and prepare the coversheet for the review. This would resolve the problem discussed at earlier meetings whereby an individual could currently be assigned several identifiers because they are working for more than one CRG. The RGC would then be responsible for allowing the reviewer access to the RevMan file as appropriate, eg while preparing the review they would have access to write to the file, perhaps read only as it is going through the editorial process or, if appropriate, be locked out. The system would be review based so that different people can have access to individual reviews unlike the current version of RevMan that only allows one person to access the database at any one time. Once accessed, the reviewer could work on the review on or off line. There will be links to the other software components of the CC’s Information Mangement System, eg links to CCTR so that references can be brought directly into the RevMan file.

As soon as a review has been given approval for publication then the RGC can link it to ModMan so that it can be published in the next available issue of The Cochrane Library thereby doing away with CRG publication deadlines. Also, it would allow access to the review by others in the CC to facilitate any other processes that might be agreed in the future, eg technical editing.

Monica commented further that:

• The system could be designed so that the review would be locked when somebody is accessing it.
• They could also consider splitting access to different parts of a review; eg one reviewer only has access to the background, another only access to the conclusions, etc.
• The system could be introduced in phases, eg perhaps start with modules first. Monica mentioned that it could be piloted first with the modules for the methods groups and centres.
• The Campbell Collaboration would perhaps be willing to pilot the system and share the cost. It would be easier to pilot it with the Campbell Collaboration because they are a smaller set up and new.

Mag members supported the further consideration of the proposal in principle for the following reasons:

• The pressures of publication deadlines would be removed as reviews could be released by RGCs as soon as they were ready to be published.
• Upgrades of RevMan and ModMan could be done centrally
• Patches could be run centrally
• Would provide an automatic backup of ModMan and RevMan
• Would facilitate easier implementation of future developments, eg the inclusion of pictures and diagrams into reviews.
• It would resolve the contact ID problem as everybody would have one ID irrespective of the groups to which they are attached.

Concerns expressed by MAG members:

• RGCs would like some stability in the immediate future. Monica confirmed that there was no intention to introduce anything new for at least 3 years.
• Concerns about the security of the system. How secure would the files on the internet be?
• Concerns about reviewers feeling as if ‘big brother is watching you’.
• Would there be adequate resources?
  Monica reported that they are planning to build in money for a training and support person for CRGs as well as money to bring the advisory groups together.
• Lois expressed concerns about communication times. It can be frustrating trying to connect to the internet. If we are going to be so dependent on the internet for our core tasks, we must look at the telecommunications in each country.

Recommendations by MAG members:

• Current systems and new systems should be allowed to run in parallel.
• There should be no imposed implementation dates.
• Adequate training and support must be provided.

Jane asked if this would mean that people, who can currently access the internet but cannot install RevMan 4 because they work on a 16 bit platform platform, will be able to use Revman 4 because they can work on it on the internet. Would an internet-based system allow people to bypass the limitations of their PCs operating system?

Lois asked about the physical tools that would be used, ie would it be a RevMan interface or word documents? Monica replied that they could explore integrating different tools using what was already there but they were not sure at the moment. It may be a bit of both would be used. Monica said that they would need guidance from people who know more about these systems if the proposal is accepted.

ACTION: Monica to take feedback from the MAG meeting to SDG meeting on Friday. MAG members to send comments on the draft letter to Monica by Monday.

Any other business

1. Membership of MAG

   As Kate is taking 5 months extended leave from the Collaboration, it was agreed that Sonja would put out a call for a volunteer to join MAG to cover Kate’s period of absence. Reive suggested that the procedure for ‘recruiting’ members for MAG be reviewed at the next meeting.

   ACTION: Sonja to email ‘adminors’.

2. SDG meeting

   As Sonja is unable to attend the SDG meeting on Friday and nobody else is available to represent MAG, it was agreed that the items relevant to MAG on the SDG agenda would be discussed, and the views of MAG documented in draft minutes of the meeting in time for Monica to take to the SDG to feed into their discussions.

   1. Web archive of SDG, RAG and MAG minutes and other relevant documents:

      Monica reported that Jacob Riis has offered to create an html document of the MAG minutes, and the other groups, to put on a website along with other relevant information relating to these groups, eg the remit document. This would mean that the format for minutes from these groups would have to be standardised. There was agreement that:

   • Past minutes could be put on the website.
   • Only the minutes approved by those at the meeting for final approval at the next meeting should go on the website, and not drafts.
   • There should be no access restrictions to the website.
   2. Principles for software development and tests - past experiences of the development of RevMan 4, Meta View 4 and ModMan 4.
      

      The following suggestions were made as a result of this year’s experiences with the development of ModMan 4:
      

      1. To set realistic deadlines
      2. To plan sufficient slack into deadline timetables
      3. Workshops organised for RGCs in advance of official releases are very helpful
      4. To be able to run systems in parallel
      5. To allow new systems to be incorporated into CRGs procedures at a realistic time for them rather than impose a date for total change over
      6. Improve the testing procedures:
         - Release new system to a restricted group to field test and ensure that the testers give a true commitment to testing.
         - Consider paying the testers for a committed period of testing on their part.
         - set aside funding for testing and training, including trainers
      7. Not to release it too early to reviewers [RevMan]
      8. Consider the need for IT support for CRGs

   3. Contacts database software

      Monica reported that contacts database software is being developed by the Norwegian branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre as an alternative to HIREx. This system would be web based with the facility to work on or off line. The intention is to demonstrate it at the Colloquium in Cape Town.

   4. Liaison Officer

      Lois reported that Mike Clarke is now the Liaison officer between the Collaboration and Update Software. In this role, Mike has agreed to a reordering of the information contained in Group’s modules when published in The Cochrane Library. The list of reviewers’ names will no longer be published near the beginning of the module but would be moved to nearer the end.

Date of next meeting

Monica said that it is more convenient for her to attend a MAG meeting that is arranged within a day of RAG meetings so that she doesn’t have to make separate trips. It was suggested that the MAG team might want to meet for a short while sometime during the UK Contributors’ meeting in Oxford in April.

ACTION: Sonja to circulate possible dates when more details of the UK meeting are available and the next RAG and SDG meetings are available.

MAG minutes | MinMan home