Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → MAG → Minutes → MAG minutes, 1 October 2002
 

MAG minutes, 1 October 2002

Minutes approved: 14 November 2002

Present: Mandy Collingwood, Jane Dennis, Monica Fischer (until 3.30pm), Sonja Henderson (Convenor), Katherine Henshaw, Rasmus Moustgaard, Kirsty Loudon Olsen, Nancy Owens (until 2pm), Reive Robb, Gro Alice Sorensen

In attendance: Shaun Treweek

Apologies: Lois Sims, Phil Wiffen

Contents:
Welcome and apologies
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes
Matters arising from the minutes of previous meetings
Specifications for a tracking system document
Tracking software
Update from IMSG
Membership of MAG
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome

    2. Sonja welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Shaun from the IT group at the Oslo branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Apologies had been received from Lois Sims, Phil Wiffen.

  2. Approval of agenda

    3. Monica added 'Update from IMSG' to the agenda. The issue of withdrawn reviews was raised but it was agreed to pass this on to RAG.

  3. Approval of minutes of last meeting held on 12 December 2001

    4. The minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2001 were approved.

  4. Matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting

    1. Item 5d Bug list

      2. Rasmus said that he did not think that items in ModMan that had the 'Include in Module' box unchecked but the 'Withdrawn' box still checked were included in the total count. Sonja agreed to check this.
      Action: Sonja

    2. Item 7 HM and SR codes

      3. It was agreed that a publisher representative was needed in order to discuss this item.

    3. Item 8

      4. Citation of withdrawn publications In Cochrane Library - Sonja still following this up with Update Software.
      Action: Sonja

  5. Specifications for a tracking system document

    1. Feedback from quality improvement manager

      2. Nancy said that the document is very much in line with what has come up in her work. All but eight groups had been visited already so it was unlikely that anything very new would arise but she would let the group know if anything did arise that needed to be considered. Nancy had sent comments to Sonja that had already been covered in the document. The quality improvement project would finish at the end of September when a framework based on her findings would be available. Nancy agreed to send a draft of this to the MAG at the same time as the steering group.
      Action: Nancy

    2. Use of the term 'best practice'

      3. A discussion took place about the use of the term 'best practice'. It was suggested that this was not a good term because what was 'best practice' for one group may not be for another. This was simply a reflection of effective current practice rather than good practice. It was agreed to leave the terms as they are for now.

    3. Updates to the document

      4. Several new items were agreed:
      • Protocol deleted
      • Review deleted
      • Updated review withdrawn
      • Updated review deleted

      Changes would be made once the framework was available from the quality improvement project. It was agreed that the next update would be the last.
      Action: Rasmus

  6. Tracking software

    1. Current use systems

      2. Nancy reported that groups were either using ModMan or tracking software that they had developed themselves. It was thought that a group in Australia were using a highly developed web-based system and Monica agreed to find out more about this. There were also some well-developed Access databases. Most groups felt that their system could be better in terms of the effort involved in entering the data versus how much information could be extracted from the system, and would prefer their system to link with databases that they use. This would avoid the same information being input into several different systems.
      Action: Monica

    2. Evaluation of commercial products

      3. Gro Alice went through the report of the survey of commercial tracking products. Many of the systems were very old and not supported. Although these systems were cheaper, they were unlikely to meet all requirements and would probably be expensive to have modified. Most systems had some very good features but lacked specified components. The question was raised whether the new publisher of Cochrane output might require a particular system to be used. It was felt that a publisher representative was necessary in order that they could advise whether they could accommodate our needs. Monica said that the Collaboration had undertaken to continue in-house development and that the publishers would be asked to work with that.

    3. ModMan 4.2

      4. Mandy and Sonja had been using ModMan 4.2 successfully to track the progress of titles, protocols and reviews through the editorial process. They suggested that ModMan 4.2 should be recommended to RGCs as an interim solution until such time as a complete system that is affordable can be found. It was agreed that this would be better than putting effort into developing a new interim system.

      Mandy agreed to export her existing data from her version of ModMan tracking to Rasmus for experimental verification. 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 help write the guidelines whilst they are testing. This would also help inform the current tracking exercise.
      Action: Mandy, Sonja

  7. Update from IMSG

    1. IMSG recommendations to Steering Group

      2. Monica went through the recommendations from the IMSG to the steering group for a new Internet based information management system, including the advantages and disadvantages of such a system and timescales for the project.

      The issue of confidentiality of contact details was raised. Reviewers would be asked to sign a form saying that they agreed to their details being included in the system. The IMSG had asked the Secretariat to consult lawyers on the legal implications first.

      Mandy had found several differences between the editorial processes of their Group compared to another. This was raised as a potential problem for the system. It was clarified that the intention was that the system would be set up in a standard way, which could be adapted to each Group's own way of working. The Specifications for a tracking system document had been developed with this in mind. Mandy agreed to ask the other group to see if they could identify their process within this document

      The special version of ModMan for non-CRGs would be developed first for centres then for methods groups.
      Action: Mandy

  8. Membership of MAG

    1. Comments on document

      2. Several amendments to the document were agreed:

      • Remit - Add to remit 'to provide advice on Training of RGCs'.
      • Link is out of date - should read up to IMSG only.
      • Membership - It was clarified that Monica is not representing the steering group but is an advisor to the steering group as the IMSG convenor.
      • Financial support - Funding from Nordic Cochrane Centre should be more explicit. Cochrane Collaboration should be added.
      • Objective - process should be transparent.

      Action: Reive

    2. Tenure

      3. It was recommend that tenure should be for three years for RGC/Co-ed representatives. If members are involved in particular projects then their membership could be extended for that stage of the project to allow for tasks to be handed over. What constitutes a project needs to be clarified. After the three years, the member should step down but can reapply.

    3. Representation

      4. It was noted that a replacement was needed for Kirsty as she is leaving her post as the co-ordinator of the Methodology Review Group. Kirsty was thanked for her contribution. A discussion took place about whether there is a need for someone to specifically represent methods groups on MAG. It was agreed that there was no need for special representation.

      Several ways of formalising the process were discussed including random selection, experience of RGC, size of CRG or geography. It was suggested that there could be representation from each of the four regions (America, UK, Europe, Australasia) and then the extra places allocated based on the number of groups within each region. The point was raised that if there are not expected to be differences in the experience of the software in different regions then there should not be a requirement to involve people from different regions. It was felt that regional representation might be useful in terms of the provision of local support. However, the group felt that this is not part of their remit. The issue of representation on the basis of size of group was also discussed.

      It was agreed that the system should remain as an open invitation with a clear statement of expectation and a statement of ideal spread of representation that would be desirable.

    4. Meetings

      5. It was agreed to aim to hold one meeting at the Colloquium and one other face-to-face meeting annually (if needed, location to be determined by the location of the attending members). Although expenses would be covered by the IMSG for the next year, they would need to be reconsidered in the future.

    5. Appointment of convenor

      6. It was agreed that MAG should elect the convenor, and that this should be done by secret ballot.

      Reive agreed to update the document and send to IMSG via Sonja for approval.
      Action: Reive

  9. Date of next meeting

    10. 14th November between 0830 and 1200 at the offices of the Secretariat in Oxford.

MAG minutes | MinMan home
Document Actions