Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → MAG → Minutes → MAG minutes, 12 December 2001
 

MAG minutes, 12 December 2001

Minutes approved on 31 July 2002

Present: Claire Allen (minutes), Mandy Collingwood, Jane Dennis, Jan Arve Dyrnes, Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson (Convenor), Rasmus Moustgaard, Kirsty Loudon Olsen (until 3.30pm), Nancy Owens (for items 5 and 9), Reive Robb, Lois Sims (until 10.45am), Phil Wiffen (until 12.30pm).

Apologies: Kate Henshaw.

Contents:
Welcome and apologies
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes
Matters arising from the minutes of previous meetings
ModMan 4.1
Publication of module deadlines
HM and SR codes
Withdrawn publications
ModMan 4.2
Tracking
Web pages
Membership of MAG
Budget
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome

    2. Sonja welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Kirsty Loudon Olsen, the co-ordinator of the Methodology Review Group based at the Oslo Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Apologies had been received from Kate Henshaw.

  2. Approval of agenda

    3. It was agreed that because both Lois and Phil had to leave early, the agenda previously circulated should be revised and it was agreed to discuss the issues in the order of the 'Contents' section (above). It was also agreed to add the items: Validation rules (as a sub-section of ModMan 4.1); Publication of module deadlines; Withdrawn reviews; and Budget.

  3. Approval of minutes of last meeting held on 27 September 2001

    4. The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2001 were approved.

  4. Matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting

    5. There were no matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2001 that would not be discussed under items on the agenda.

  5. ModMan 4.1

    1. Feedback on the first module submission

      Rasmus reported that there had been no technical problems reported to him although a new programme had been written for the Methodology Review Group as their reviews were submitted in a different way to those of Collaborative Review Groups. Lois pointed out that although no problems had been reported, not all CRGs had submitted their module in ModMan 4.1. This was ascertained because of the problems that arose with validation checks done by Update Software. Sonja agreed to send an e-mail to the adminors e-mail discussion list advising that there will be no support for ModMan 4.0 from the end of 2001 so CRGs should upgrade their software to ModMan 4.1.
      Action: Sonja

    2. Validation rules

      A discussion took place about the validation rules as several RGCs had asked for the validation rules for references to be altered. For example, Kirsty pointed out that when referencing a dissertation, the software default asks for a volume number and if one is not given (which is usual), a warning is generated. Lois reminded everybody that the validation rules reflect the policy of the Cochrane Collaboration regarding the sections of protocols and reviews that must be, or should be, completed before the item is published in The Cochrane Library. The validation check facility within ModMan is therefore designed to help ensure that this happens. Errors reported by the validation check will stop the item from being published in The Cochrane Library. The warnings reported by the validation check are there to alert RGCs to sections that may be incomplete or inaccurate but these do not stop the item being submitted for publication. The validation rules are based on the publication rules that had been discussed and agreed by the RevMan Advisory Group (RAG). Any problems with the validation of references should therefore be raised at this Group and the Quality Advisory Group (QAG). Sonja agreed to raise it at the next RAG meeting providing specific examples and pointing out that any changes will affect the User Guide. Sonja agreed to send a message to adminors to explain that it might not be possible for all the warnings generated by the validation checks on previous publications to be dealt with straightaway. These could be dealt with over time. Also, that there would be some references that might not fit into the agreed generic formats for reasons known to the RGC but wherever possible the agreed formats should be adopted.
      Action: Sonja

    3. Wish list

      New items:

      • ID 11 - Remove validation warning for missing volume: This was rejected - see 5b above. Sonja to raise this issue at the RAG.
      • ID 12 - A way to mark whether the validation warning should be ignored after first seen: This was rejected (although it might be helpful to link this with tracking).
      • A new item had been sent to Sonja requesting that it should be possible to add titles to the Topics list so that the list can be used for internal purposes as well. This was rejected because the ModMan list reflects the items published in The Cochrane Library, and it is against Collaboration policy to publish titles. Sonja to inform the submitter of this wish.
      • Sonja agreed to send a message to adminors explaining why wishes 11 and 12 had been rejected.
      Action: Sonja

      Items previously discussed:

      • ID 01 - ModMan should not be connected to RevMan: It was agreed that this item should remain on the wish list.
      • ID 05 - Ability to edit the topic list more easily: Rasmus had not yet been able to clarify this wish but it was agreed to assign a low priority status.
      • ID 10 - Internal and external: Sonja agreed to raise the issue at the next RAG meeting of the inconsistency between the headings used in RevMan and ModMan for internal and external sources of support. Sonja to recommend that the headings in RevMan be changed to match those in ModMan bearing in mind that this would need to cascade so that it was also implemented in The Cochrane Library.
      • ID 08 - Link to different levels in the topics list: Sonja had investigated whether a change of policy was needed and had established that no policy existed. This item to remain on the wish list.
      Action: Rasmus, Sonja

    4. Bug list

      • Sonja pointed out that if a review or protocol within ModMan had the 'Include in module' box unchecked but the 'Withdrawn' still checked, the software counts the item in the total of included protocols and/or reviews. Rasmus agreed to investigate.

        • Action: Rasmus, Sonja
      • Rasmus also pointed out that every time the 'Save' function is used on the tracking screen within ModMan, the software completes a new validation check. This will be rectified in the next version of ModMan.

  6. Publication of module deadlines

    7. Discussion took place regarding the appropriateness of circulating widely the module deadlines in relation to reviewers submitting reviews to the editorial base. Lois agreed to add text to the provider's pages on Update Software's web page advising that the deadlines were between Update Software and the Cochrane entity, and were not reviewers' deadlines. Individual reviewers should contact their CRGs for editorial deadlines.
    Action: Lois

  7. HM and SR codes

    8. Carol Lefebvre had contacted Sonja advising that it is not possible to search for the HM and SR codes within The Cochrane Library and had asked for an explanation to be given within CRG modules. Sonja agreed to advise Carol to go through The Cochrane Library comments route (by contacting Philip Bassett at Update Software) as MAG did not consider this of relevance to their remit.
    Action: Sonja

  8. Withdrawn publications

    9. Sonja advised that the way in which withdrawn protocols were cited in The Cochrane Library was misleading. At present, the citation quotes the current issue of The Cochrane Library whereas it should quote the full published version (in whatever issue that was). Sonja agreed to raise this issue with Philip Bassett of Update Software
    Action: Sonja

    Phil agreed to contact Mike Clarke, as Convenor of the Publishing Policy Group, for clarification about what CRGs should do if they require versions of withdrawn Cochrane reviews. Monica pointed out that Update Software had given an undertaking to provide versions of withdrawn reviews.
    Action: Phil

  9. ModMan 4.2

    10. Sonja had circulated a list of basic questions, which would be answered through the new improved reporting package in ModMan 4.2 (not mandatory). Rasmus had produced a screen in ModMan 4.2, which would allow CRGs to produce these improved reports. The new improved reporting should be seen as an interim 'fix', building on information already contained within ModMan, to provide useful information for CRGs who are in urgent need of a tracking system to help them with their day to day activities. Reive raised the concern that resources would be put into trying to make a quick 'fix' in the interim rather than concentrating on the bigger picture and it could detract from other more important work. Rasmus clarified that no changes would take place within ModMan, rather that he would add a new screen to give an improved reporting package. This would not take him long to do and he could have it ready for the end of January.

    On the screen, the members of the MAG had the following suggestions which Rasmus agreed to implement:

    Remove the word 'Reviews' in heading.
    Change 'Total count only' to 'Total only'.
    Change 'Reviewer name' to 'Contact reviewer'.
    Change 'Review title' to 'Title'.
    Within the box 'Reviews with tracking entries for a certain person', the drop down menu should include names and roles.
    Change 'Subcriteria for tracking entries' to 'Subcriteria for tracking entries with' and remove the word 'With' from the three sub-criterion following it.
    Change 'Comcrits' to 'Comments' and 'Reply' to 'Response' if that is the wording used in RevMan.
    Remove 'Reviews where reviewer has received all feedback but not received final draft'.

    Action: Rasmus

    Rasmus also agreed to change the error message, which occurs when a retrospective date is entered into the date required/expected field, to a warning.
    Action: Rasmus

    It was agreed that the report output should show: title; contact author; internal review number; and date last updated (divided into sections for reviews, protocols and titles). Rasmus also agreed to investigate the possibility of sorting by contact author (divided into sections for reviews, protocols and titles).
    Action: Rasmus

    Mandy agreed to export her existing data from her version of ModMan tracking for Rasmus to trial. Sonja agreed to e-mail adminors asking who would be interested in using the interim version and informing them of the progress in the longer term. It was agreed that the testers could write the guidelines whilst they are testing. This would also help inform the current tracking exercise.
    Action: Mandy, Sonja

  10. Tracking

    1. Specifications for a tracking system

      The second draft of the paper titled 'Specifications for a tracking system' had previously been circulated by Rasmus. No feedback had been received. It was agreed to separate the two sections of the document into two separate documents: the first as a general overview (removing all references to the appendices); the second, a working document. Monica advised that any recommendations should be sent to the Information Management Software Group (IMSG).

      Rasmus agreed to publish the general overview on the MAG web page once he had added the rider that the document would be revisited once Nancy had identified 'best practice' as part of the quality improvement project (this should be added to both documents).
      Action: Rasmus

    2. Commercial tracking software

      Jan Arve had evaluated five software systems and had discounted two immediately. The three which had been evaluated more thoroughly were: EJ Press, Rapid Review and Editorial Manager.

      EJ Press was a tracking software system only and they had agreed that CRGs work flow was not suitable for their software. However, they have offered their source material to build on. Jan Arve reported that this was a very expensive option and that extensive programming would have to be carried out to fit the requirements. It was agreed to discount this option.

      Rapid Review is a complete publishing system and can customise CRGs work flow to fit. It is a very sophisticated system, and could replace the information management system at present. It would be able to support updating but concern was raised that because this software would not be linked to existing software, duplicate data entry would have to take place. It was agreed to discount this option, but Jan Arve agreed to forward the information on Rapid Review to the IMSG.
      Action: Jan Arve

      Editorial Manager is a sophisticated software system and is not a simple tracking system. It was agreed to discount this option.

      After discussion, it was agreed that there seemed to be no simple tracking systems that would meet the needs of CRGs. Nancy reported that she is asking CRGs (in the interviews with entities that she is carrying out) to send her their tracking systems, however basic or advanced. Nancy agreed to forward these to Jan Arve for him to evaluate against the agreed specifications. Nancy also confirmed that she had agreed to arrange for a website to be set up so that CRG resources could be shared in the interim. Monica offered to help Nancy with this.

      Monica suggested that it might be helpful to add another section to the IMS website about ongoing work of the MAG for those who do not have time to read through all the minutes.
      Action: Nancy, Monica

      Jan Arve recommended that the tracking system be Internet based as there would be less cost for support, there would be a central back-up system and tracking could be integrated with both the titles management system and the contact management system. Concerns were raised about confidentiality if a centralised system were held.

      Jan Arve agreed to contact Mark Starr to ask him if he would demonstrate 'Starteam', the tracking system used by Update Software.
      Action: Jan Arve

      Sonja agreed to contact Mike Clarke to ask if it would be appropriate to contact various publishers (e.g. BMJ, Clinical Evidence, BioMed Central) to ask what tracking systems they used. Jan Arve agreed to ask Andy Oxman whether it would be appropriate to contact Fiona Godlee for advice.
      Action: Sonja, Jan Arve

      Concern was raised that some people were maintaining their contact details in RevMan. Sonja agreed to alert adminors to the fact that the contact details in RevMan are not used at the moment to build the central contacts database maintained by the Collaboration. The contact details of co-reviewers in RevMan are also not published in the The Cochrane Library; only those of the contact reviewer.
      Action: Sonja [Post meeting recommendation: Message to adminors to be delayed until discussions have taken place about how the central contacts database will be updated.]

  11. MAG website

    12. It was agreed that, in future, Sonja would send agenda items direct to Rasmus so that an electronic agenda could be compiled.
    Action: Sonja

  12. Membership of MAG

    13. The discussion document, prepared by Reive, was discussed. A couple of items were clarified:
    - It had been previously agreed that Monica was an ex-officio member.
    - The IMSG appointed the convenor of the group.

    It was agreed that there was no limit on ex-officio members and that calls for volunteers should be made on a worldwide basis with no limiting factors.

    Monica and Sonja agreed to add to the remit document that although the MAG had limited funds, it should not stop anyone from becoming a member of MAG. It will also be made clearer that ex-officio members can be co-opted for special projects. Once the remit document had been amended, Sonja would circulate it to MAG for comment and then to the IMSG for approval before circulating it to the MAG constituency.
    Action: Monica, Sonja

  13. Finance

    14. Monica reported that there had been an overspend on the MAG budget. Sonja therefore agreed to investigate the feasibility of holding the next MAG meeting during the Colloquium.
    Action: Sonja

  14. Date of next meeting

    15. Sonja agreed to investigate the feasibility of holding the next MAG meeting during the Colloquium with the possibility of an interim teleconference. Once the dates are known, Sonja will circulate them.
    Action: Sonja

MAG minutes | MinMan home
Document Actions