Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → MAG → Minutes → MAG minutes, 27 March 2001
 

MAG minutes, 27 March 2001

Minutes of the ModMan Advisory Group meeting held at St Catherine's College, Oxford on 27 March 2001

Minutes approved on: 27 September 2001

Present: Claire Allen (minutes), Mandy Collingwood, Jane Dennis (until 4.20pm), Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson (Convenor), Kate Henshaw (until 5pm), Rasmus Moustgaard, Graham Mowatt (until 4.30pm), Reive Robb (until 4.20pm), Lois Sims.

Apologies: Phil Wiffen.

Contents:
Welcome
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes of 6 December 2000
Matters arising from the minutes of 6 December 2000
ModMan 4.1
Documentation for ModMan 4.1
Timescale for release of ModMan 4.1
Tracking
Validation rules
Publication number
Glossaries
Additional graphs
Any other business
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome

    2. Sonja welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies had been received from Phil Wiffen.

  2. Approval of agenda

    3. The agenda was approved. Monica added the items 'Publication on the web site' and 'Budget for the MAG' to 'Any other business'.

  3. Approval of minutes of 6 December 2000

    4. The minutes of 26 October 2000 were agreed and had already been uploaded to the web site. It was agreed by all that minutes that had been approved electronically would be added to the web site specifying clearly that these minutes were awaiting formal approval.

  4. Matters arising from the minutes of 6 December 2000

    1. Future development of ModMan - Item 4.4
      The up-to-date bug list (but not the wishlist) is on Update Software's website. Once ModMan 4.1 has been released, it will move to the Nordic Cochrane Centre's website along with the wishlist.
      Action: Rasmus

    2. ModMan development (including the Wishlist) - Item 5
      This item will be dealt with under items 5 and 6 of this agenda.

    3. Reviewers' IDs
      Sonja reported feedback from the RGCs' meeting the previous day that the concept of sharing reviewer IDs would be a good idea but was not an issue in the development of the ModMan 4.1.

  5. ModMan 4.1

    1. Beta testing report
      Rasmus reported that approximately 10 people had tested the beta version of ModMan 4.1 and that they represented all regions (Australasia, continental Europe, UK and USA). He had received little additional feedback.

    2. Feedback from the UK RGCs' meeting on 26 March 2001
      Sonja reported that:
      1. Rasmus had demonstrated the beta version ModMan 4.1 and all the UK RGCs seemed to welcome the revisions made.
      2. There had been a request at the RGC meeting about the possibility of expanding the topics list fully by one click on screen. Rasmus agreed to add a button facilitating this in ModMan 4.1.
      3. There had been a request about being able to type in the text in ModMan quicker than can be done currently. This is also an issue for RevMan. Rasmus will investigate.
      4. There had been a request to explain the meaning and use of the 'to CRG date' in the documentation.
      5. The RGCs had asked for clarification about whether the words 'Cochrane' and 'Review' should be included when typing in the Group's name in the coversheet of ModMan. It was agreed that the word 'Review' should not be included. As Update Software automatically generate the word 'Cochrane' before each group's name, this should not be entered either. However, RGCs would like the word 'Cochrane' to appear before their Group name on the reports generated in ModMan. Rasmus agreed to find a way to include the word 'Cochrane' on the reports.
      Rasmus to ensure the word 'Cochrane' appears on the ModMan reports in front of the Group name. This and other changes should be reflected in the help file as necessary.
      Action: Rasmus

    3. Communication with non-UK based RGCs
      Rasmus would give a demonstration of ModMan 4.1 to European based RGCs at the Lisbon meeting in June. Sonja had agreed to feedback details of the session in the UK to the organisers of the other three regions.

  6. Documentation for ModMan 4.1

    1. Helpfile
      Rasmus and Jacob were in the process of updating the Helpfile. Sonja, Reive and Jane agreed to look at the documentation on withdrawn reviews and provide clear guidance on the use of the 'include' and 'withdrawn' check boxes.
      Action: Sonja, Reive, Jane

    2. Module guidelines
      Sonja clarified the amendments that had already been made to the document and the changes were summarised as follows:
      1. On page one, the contact name to whom improvements should be sent, should be changed to read 'the Convenor of MAG'.
      2. The word 'text' should be added after the word 'module' where it is referring to the text of the module.
      3. On page 2, the 'List of fixed headings' has been reorganised to match the order the headings appear in ModMan. It was agreed that a note should be added to say that this may not be the order published in The Cochrane Library.
      4. On page 4, an explanation of how to present telephone and fax numbers should be added (spaces between codes and numbers). The non-uniformity of writing style in Cochrane internal documentation was discussed at this point. It was agreed that Sonja would inform Mike Clarke that Cochrane documentation does not consistently reflect the Cochrane style guidelines and that MAG members agreed that all internal documentation should be written following the agreed style. Monica suggested that this could be mentioned in an article for Cochrane News.
        Action: Sonja, Kate
      5. It was agreed to remove the section in brackets on page 4, which said that 'it may be possible, in the future, to list new reviews and protocols automatically' as this document should reflect the current situation only, and not discuss what might be the case in the future.
      6. Sonja and Monica agreed to discuss the presentational style of glossaries with Mike Clarke as he has written a report about the future of glossaries for the IMSG.
        Action: Sonja, Monica

      It was suggested that the Module guidelines should not be included in the Handbook as it was considered a detailed specification for RGCs to refer to when preparing their module. It was also suggested that at present there is some inconsistency in the document, especially in relation to Cochrane policy (in some places the policy is stated, and in others it is referenced). Kate agreed to amend the document and to re-circulate this for comments before the 30th April.

    3. User Guide
      Kate was thanked for producing this document which had already been circulated. It was agreed by all that this should not be incorporated within the software but be a stand-alone document. Everyone was happy with the format and agreed to give feedback to Kate by 12 April 2001.
      Action: Everyone

      Kate agreed to remind MAG members that comments should be sent to her by 12 April and also to ask for alternative names for both the User Guide and the Module Guidelines in order to make the differences between them clearer.
      Action: Kate

  7. Timescale for release of ModMan 4.1

    8. Rasmus reported that now the beta version of ModMan 4.1 had been tested, only minor changes had to be made prior to release. At this point, the issue of validation rules was discussed, as this would affect the timescale. The discussion about validation falls under item 9 of these minutes.

    It was subsequently agreed that the validation rules should be implemented (with some changes as detailed under item 9 of these minutes) and this would require the next version of ModMan 4.1 to be re-tested. The implication of further testing means that the new version will not be available for release until some time after the regional meetings of RGCs taking place in June. Sonja agreed to ask RGCs for their comments on the beta version as demonstrated at the regional meetings.
    Action: Sonja

  8. Tracking

    9. Sonja agreed to convene a special one-day meeting to discuss this issue (see item 14) as there was not enough time left to discuss this issue fully. It was agreed someone needed to co-ordinate tracking, but that it could be an independent consultant who would be able to carry out a needs assessment based on the results of the survey (carried out in 2000 by Sonja). Monica, Rasmus and Sonja agreed to discuss with Mike Clarke whether there is any funding for this, and the implications of delaying this plan.
    Action: Monica, Rasmus, Sonja

  9. Validation rules

    10. Lois's document on 'proposed validation rules that Cochrane reviews/protocols must pass before being published in The Cochrane Library' was discussed. Everyone supported Lois's proposal that validation checks should be carried out on protocols and reviews within ModMan and if they failed to meet the agreed validation rules, they should not be published. Sonja reported that the validation checks described by Lois reflected the discussions that had been previously agreed at the RevMan Advisory Group meeting. Discussions took place about whether RGCs should be able to do individual review validation checks or whether one validation check should be carried out just before module submission). Sonja agreed to start an e-mail discussion about the best time for the validation checks to be 'flagged' to the RGC.
    Action: Sonja

    Lois had prepared 3 sets of validation checklists: one for sections a review must contain, one for the sections a protocol must contain and one that would generate a warning but would not stop the protocol/review from being published. These were discussed and the following amendments agreed:

    1. Appendix A, Reviews:
      1. To change 'first name and last name' to 'first name or last name'.
      2. To clarify that the contact details required are those of the contact reviewer only.

    2. Appendix B, Protocols:
      1. To change 'first name and last name' to 'first name or last name'.

    3. Appendix C, Warnings (these were all agreed subject to the following clarifications):
      1. No table of included studies - A warning should pop up only if references to studies are listed in the included studies section of the review but there is no text in the table of included studies (i.e. a blank table is shown in the review).
      2. No table of excluded studies - A warning should pop up only if references to studies are listed in the excluded studies section but there is no text in the table of excluded studies (i.e. a blank table is shown in the review).
      3. Incorrectly formatted references - It was acknowledged that this might not be able to be implemented due to the random nature of some references.
      4. That no text in the 'contribution of reviewers' section should be added to the list of items that would generate a warning message.

    Lois reported that all of the above validation checks would be re-run on the current issue of The Cochrane Library and agreed to notify Sonja in the first instance to identify the extent of the problem for current publications. It was agreed that individual RGCs should be notified as soon as possible of those reviews that failed the validation checks.
    Action: Lois

    Rasmus reported that the agreed validation checks could be added to ModMan 4.1 without major changes to the test version. The implementation of the validation rules would affect the timing of the release of ModMan 4.1. Rasmus agreed that he would include them by the end of April 2001.
    Action: Rasmus

    Kate would add this information to the appropriate section of the documentation on 'Support for RGCs'.
    Action: Kate

  10. Publication number

    11. This item was postponed until the next meeting and Sonja would add it to the agenda for the next meeting.
    Action: Sonja

  11. Glossaries

    12. Sonja reported that Mike Clarke was undertaking a project pulling together CRG glossaries. This will have implications for the guidelines and Sonja agreed to clarify the situation with Mike (see also item 6.2-f).
    Action: Sonja

  12. Additional graphs

    13. Following an email consultation by the working group on additional graphs (convened by Rasmus) and a brief discussion of the group's paper listing the various options for implementing additional graphs. MAG agreed not to recommend that this interim suggestion be implemented. Sonja agreed to relate this decision to the RevMan Advisory Group and the Information Management System Group meetings.
    Action: Sonja

  13. Any other business

    1. Publication of minutes on the web site
      This was dealt with under item 3 of this minute.
    2. Budget for MAG
      This item was postponed to the next meeting and Sonja agreed to add it to the agenda.
      Action: Sonja

  14. Date of next meeting

    15. Sonja agreed to canvass for dates before October, possibly in early June for a special meeting, possibly to take place at London, Heathrow.
    Action: Sonja

MAG minutes | MinMan home

Document Actions