Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → MAG → Minutes → MAG minutes, 7 April 2000
 

MAG minutes, 7 April 2000

Minutes of the ModMan Advisory Group meeting held at St Catherine's College, Oxford on Friday, 7 April 2000

Minutes approved on 25 May 2000

Present: Mandy Collingwood, Jane Dennis, Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson (chair), Graham Mowatt (minutes), Reive Robb, Lois Sims, Phil Wiffen.

Contents:
Welcome
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes and matters arising - not on this agenda - from MAG meeting (1 December 1999)
Feedback from SDG meeting (Monica)
ModMan wishlist/tracking (Sonja)
Contacts database software/HIREx and relationship with contacts in ModMan
RGC/TSC action group: development of training materials (Jane)
Web registering for RevMan 4.1 on CD-ROM (Monica)
The Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System (Monica)
Membership of MAG (Reive)
Any other business
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome

    2. Sonja welcomed everyone to the meeting.

  2. Approval of agenda

    3. The agenda was approved.

  3. Approval of minutes and matters arising - not on this agenda - from MAG meeting (1 December 1999)

    4. The minutes of the meeting of 1 December 1999 were approved.

    (a) Item 3 re 2b (Sonja, Monica)

    Progress of the development of the guidelines for completion of the contributors' text box. Sonja had contacted Chris Williams. This item was discussed at the Publishing and Policy Group meeting and Andy Oxman and Mike Clarke were to draft a document for circulation.

    (b) Item 3 re 2c (Sonja)

    Request for explanation of HM and SR codes to be given in The Cochrane Library. Mike Clarke had contacted Mark Starr, who had replied to the effect that Update Software considered the HM and SR home codes to be for in-house use only at the moment and had no plans to provide an explanation of the codes in The Cochrane Library.

    It was agreed to ask Mark Starr to circulate a list of all HM and SR codes to each CRG so that individual RGCs could pass these on to their reviewers.

    Action: Sonja

    (c) Item 5 (b) (Lois)

    ModMan wishlist - additional wishes - 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. Lois to investigate as this may be a bug rather than a wishlist item.

    Action: Lois

    (d) Item 5 (c) (Sonja, Monica)

    Reporting journal handsearching activities in CRG modules. The Publishing and Policy Group had suggested that MAG consider the possibility of CRG modules making a brief mention of their handsearching activities and giving the hyperlink address to the Master List on the Web. Alternatively groups' could list all the journals they were handsearching in addition to giving the hyperlink address. It was agreed to recommend that modules continue to list the journals being searched but also give the hyperlink to the Master List on the Web.

    It was agreed to inform Mike Clarke of this decision so that he could incorporate this information into the module guidelines.

    Action: Sonja

  4. Feedback from SDG meeting (Monica)

    5. Monica informed everyone that the minutes from the recent SDG meeting would soon be posted on the Nordic Cochrane Centre's web site. She fed back information to MAG on a number of areas that had been discussed.

    Definitions were needed for the various elements of a Cochrane review and a CRG module and agreement needed on which of these should be published and included in The Cochrane Library. The SDG would be meeting at the end of May 2000 to progress these issues.

    Beta testing of RevMan 4.1 and Metaview 4.1 was ongoing and was being extended by about 3 weeks. Following this, in May, Update software would fix the bugs identified and it was hoped to distribute the software soon afterwards. However, as the software was being checked again following the bug fixes it was not yet possible to provide a final release date for the software.

    Monica explained that at the recent RevMan Advisory Group Meeting it had been agreed which RevMan fields should be mandatory for completion and also which ones should be published in The Cochrane Library. Mike Clarke was to circulate this information.

  5. ModMan wishlist/tracking (Sonja)

    6. Sonja had carried out a survey of RGCs' use of the ModMan tracking facility and had circulated the full results to the members of MAG . The main issues arising from the survey were that many RGCs were not using the tracking facility as it did not meet their individual needs. It was however useful as a chasing system. Reports generated by ModMan such as the module status report were seen as being too inflexible, eg the date given on the report was the date the protocol/review was included in ModMan, which was not seen as being particularly useful. The survey had highlighted the kind of information that RGCs would like to see presented in ModMan reports. Responders to the ModMan tracking survey also felt that contact details and the inability to print on different sizes of paper were other problems with ModMan 4.

    There was a need to agree what was meant by a tracking facility, what functions it should include, and also whether it should remain within ModMan. If the tracking facility was to be separated from ModMan, it was possible that there were already adequate software packages commercially available.

    It was agreed that Sonja would draft an extension of the current remit of MAG to include the issues of tracking. Sonja agreed to draft a paper to identify the steps involved in the tracking of a Cochrane review, circulate it to the MAG then RGCs for comment, and then send it on to the SDG.

    Action: Sonja

    In addition, responders to the tracking survey were on the whole more comfortable with RevMan and ModMan being kept separate, as opposed to the current linked system. As things stood, in order to use ModMan, RevMan had to be closed down. At present most people kept two copies of RevMan as they felt this was a safer and easier way to manage reviews.

    Sonja had proposed at the SDG meeting that the way forward with ModMan was to separate it from RevMan. Lois reported that Update Software had no resources at present to develop ModMan. Monica stated that it appeared that a reasonably major revision of the software was needed. The Nordic Cochrane Centre had offered to undertake this and would have resources available after the summer, with support for the software then coming from the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Lois agreed to Monica's request for access to the ModMan code to allow the Nordic Cochrane Centre to develop the software.

    Action: Lois

    The MAG view was that if the software was revised then everyone should use it, as it was not feasible to operate two separate versions of ModMan. It was important to canvass the views of RGCs to ensure that they would be happy to move to a new version of ModMan. As the outputs were not being changed there would be no need for complex conversion procedures. It was agreed that if a new version of ModMan was developed then both systems should run in parallel for a period of time, with both being supported.

    Although the Nordic Cochrane Centre would be revising the software, the modules would still be sent to Update Software for publication in The Cochrane Library. Lois felt that, rather than having a wishlist for improvements to the existing system, if the opportunity was present it might be better to develop a completely new specification for the software. Therefore, although there was a ModMan wishlist, because Update Software had no resources to develop the software, it was felt that it would be appropriate to go back to first principles. Monica suggested focussing on what was really necessary and drawing up a list of principles and priorities, which could be sent to Rasmus by late summer so that he could work on software development.

    The list of suggested basic principles for ModMan included:

    • main function to submit modules
    • simple to use
    • 'safe haven' for protocols/reviews and group details
    • should not be able to edit protocol/review details within ModMan
    • should be able to easily import/export protocols, reviews and group details
    • the documentation should contain advice on establishing a back-up policy
    • able to be used on a network
    • easy to see the status of protocols/reviews
    • only include contact details for the CRG contact person

    It was agreed that the list of principles should go to Rasmus/Jacob first for comments, then be circulated to RGCs and Co-eds for their views, including whether the software should be multi-user. There was also a need to differentiate between short-term needs and longer-term requirements.

    Action: Sonja

    It was agreed to arrange a meeting at the Colloquium in order to demonstrate any developments with the software. Even if things had not progressed to the stage where a demonstration of the software was possible, this meeting would still provide a useful forum for discussion.

    Action: Sonja

  6. Contacts database software/HIREx and relationship with contacts in ModMan

    7. Monica explained that the reason for including contact details in ModMan was to assist in establishing a central Collaboration contacts database. At present one of the ways the Collaboration's contact database is built is from the contact details submitted with each Module to Update Software. This system has, however, resulted in a number of duplicate entries on the database. One reason for this was that if somebody is working for more than one CRG then they may have more than one contact identifier. One option might be to have a unique id for each contact. The Norwegian branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre was developing a web-based contacts management system which it was hoped would eventually provide the mechanism for a centralised database. It was planned to present details of this proposed system at the Colloquium, following which it would be piloted. Lois drew attention to the fact that in the last module submission there had been some problems with the wrong contacts being attached to protocols and reviews.

    It was being proposed that the remit of the SDG be extended to cover contact management software.

    As there is still confusion amongst RGCs as to how contact details from their Groups do get into the Collaboration's Contacts database, Monica said she would follow this up with Georg Koch. For example, Mandy said contacts she had submitted with her Module submission had not been included in the Collaboration contacts database.

    Action: Monica

  7. RGC/TSC action group: development of training materials (Jane)

    8. Jane confirmed that the Action Group had agreed at their teleconference to produce some written documentation for ModMan 4 for consideration by MAG. The ModMan subgroup of the Action Group consisted of herself, Sarah Hetrick, Marica Ferri and Bev Shea with Jane being the link person with MAG. Jane agreed to look at the various sources of information on ModMan, including queries sent to MAG, help information, and the early user guide to ModMan. She would use this to identify areas that people were having the most trouble with and focus on these first to develop a FAQ list. Jane would also be working on this as part of her Action Group duties along with Sarah Hetrick, Marica Ferri and Bev Shea. A more complex guide to ModMan could be developed at a later date. Sonja agreed to provide Jane with an archive of the questions sent to MAG.

    Action: Sonja

    Jane agreed to produce a draft FAQ for ModMan by mid May/June.

    Action: Jane

    Sonja reported that there had been discussion with Mike Clarke about including the Module guidelines in the Reviewers' Handbook. It was felt that the Module guidelines should not be included in the Reviewers' Handbook but that the Handbook should contain information as to what reviewers could expect to find in a CRG's Module. The full guidelines would be better placed in a ModMan User Guide similar to the RevMan User Guide. Discussion took place about who should be responsible for drafting and maintaining such a document. MAG members could not afford the time to do this and there was some discussion as to whether the Action Group should be responsible for drafting and maintaining this summary. Reive did not think that it should be the task of the Action Group nor volunteers. MAG agreed that there should be a designated 'person' or 'persons' who should prepare and keep such documentation up-to-date.

    Action: Sonja

  8. Web registering for RevMan 4.1 on CD-ROM (Monica)

    9. Sonja had given information on web registering for RevMan 4.1 on CD-ROM at the RGC/TSC meeting the previous day. One set of the software on CD-ROM would be automatically sent to the primary contact for each protocol and review published in Issue 2 2000 of The Cochrane Library. RGCs could request a maximum of 15 CD-ROMs from the Nordic Cochrane Centre's web site. If more were required, the RGCs should contact the Nordic Cochrane Centre directly.

  9. The Cochrane Collaboration Information Management System (Monica)

    10. The SDG had agreed that it would be useful to send a small, simple survey (consisting of around three to four questions) to everyone involved in the Collaboration asking them the kind of things they most needed to help them produce reviews. A small working group was being established to develop the survey.

    The RAG had agreed to be represented on this working group and had suggested that it would be appropriate for someone from MAG to also be involved. Sonja had been asked to send Mike Clarke the name of a RGC. Graham agreed to be the MAG representative. The members of the working group were: Paul Whatling; Philippa Middleton; Julian Higgins; Graham Mowatt; someone from the development group (to be decided); someone with experience of preparing reviews (to be decided); and Mike Clarke, who would be heading up the group.

    The working group would undertake a pilot first before revising the survey and sending it out, with the aim of presenting the results at the Colloquium in October.

    Action: Sonja

  10. Membership of MAG (Reive)

    11. Reive raised the issue of what could be done to widen representation on the MAG. Sonja suggested that one option might be to open up the MAG email list to anyone wishing to be involved in ModMan discussions. However after consideration it was recommended that a separate ModMan Discussion List be established, similar to the RevMan Discussion List. Monica agreed to ask the German Cochrane Centre to set this up.

    Action: Monica

  11. Any other business

    12. No other business was raised.

  12. Date of next meeting

    13. Date of next meeting to be agreed by email.

MAG minutes | MinMan home

Document Actions