Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → Minutes → IMSG minutes, 20 March 2002
 

IMSG minutes, 20 March 2002

Provisional minutes: 8 May 2002

Present: Gerd Antes, Chris Cates, Mike Clarke, Monica Fischer (convenor), Sonja Henderson, Julian Higgins, Rasmus Moustgaard, Elizabeth Pienaar, Mark Starr

In attendance: David Booker, Jacob Riis (minutes)

Apologies: Phil Wiffen

Contents:
Welcome, introductions and apologies
Approval of agenda
Potential conflict of interest
Approval of minutes and matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting (14 December 2001)
RevMan 4.2
Matters arising from the RAG meeting
Considerations and recommendations for figures in Cochrane Reviews: graphs of statistical data
Testing of RevMan Analyses
Results from the Needs Assessment Survey
Developing countries survey
Intellectual property rights and the IMSG
Update on the new contact management system
IMSG financial report
Any other business
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome, introductions and apologies

    2. Monica welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced David Booker, who has recently been employed by the German Cochrane Centre to oversee the redesign of the main Cochrane web site.

  2. Approval of agenda

    3. The agenda was approved and the items 14.a, 'Approval of minutes' and 14.b, 'The role of David Booker on the IMSG' were added.

  3. Potential conflict of interest

    • Gerd Antes: Representing the Steering Group. No potential conflicts known, but possibly in relation to the German Cochrane Centre's responsibility for managing the Collaboration web site.
    • Chris Cates: Convenor of the Criticism Management Advisory Group.
    • Mike Clarke: Convenor of the RevMan Advisory Group. Representing the Steering Group. Editor of the Reviewers' Handbook.
    • Monica Fischer: Convenor of the IMSG. Co-ordinator of software development at the Nordic Cochrane Centre.
    • Sonja Henderson: Convenor of the ModMan Advisory Group. Review Group Co-ordinator of the largest review group, which desperately requires a tracking system.
    • Julian Higgins: Co-convenor of the Statistical Methods Group. Co-editor of the statistical section of the Reviewers' Handbook.
    • Rasmus Moustgaard: Convenor of the Technical Implementation Advisory Group. Employed to work on software development at the Nordic Cochrane Centre.
    • Elizabeth Pienaar: Representing developing countries. No potential conflicts known.
    • Mark Starr: Representing Update Software. Involvement in the development of commercial software, e.g. Metaxis, and software for the Cochrane Collaboration as publisher of The Cochrane Library.
    • Phil Wiffen: Representing co-ordinating editors. No potential conflicts known.

  4. Approval of minutes and matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting (14 December 2001)

    5. A minor correction was made to section 6.b, where after the minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

    1. Attachment of a comment to a review when it is first published (item 4.c)

      2. It was discussed if comments on reviews from the editorial base should be made using the 'Published notes' section in RevMan rather than the Comments and criticisms system. Currently, reviews with notes are not flagged in The Cochrane Library, but Mark confirmed that it would be possible if desired. Chris reminded the group that the new web system for comments and criticisms allows further discussion of comments. It was agreed to recommend that comments from editorial bases should be included as Published notes and flagged in The Cochrane Library, and that those comments should also be entered into the comments and criticisms web system. However, some groups may be using the Published notes section for information that does not warrant the review being flagged. Sonja agreed to canvass CRGs about their use of this section.
      Action: Sonja

    2. Minutes and other resources on IMS web site (item 8.a)

      3. Jacob reported that the structure of the minutes web site had not been changed yet. The agenda and background papers for this meeting had been distributed via email as a single PDF file package, and the group agreed that this had been helpful.

      Monica informed the group that she had submitted an abstract for a poster presenting the IMSG web site at the Stavanger Colloquium.

      It was discussed whether the IMSG web site should be considered part of the main Collaboration site, and it was decided to await the recommendations to be prepared by David Booker.

    3. RevMan 4.2, RevMan Analyses and MetaView 4.1 (item 8.b)

      4. Rasmus reported that the MetaView 4.1 executable files are included in the RevMan 4.2 beta as a backup for RevMan Analyses. If a file called "metaview.txt" exists in the installation folder, RevMan will use Metaview instead of RevMan Analyses.

    4. Tracking software (item 9.c)

      5. Jan Arve has not completed his report yet. The ModMan Advisory Group will not be meeting until the Stavanger colloquium.

    5. Membership of MAG (item 9.d)

      6. The ModMan Advisory Group's consideration of the transparency of its membership and remit awaits the group's meeting in Stavanger.

    6. Contact pilot security issues (item 10.a)

      7. Rasmus reported that the matter of server security had been discussed on the TIAG email list, but with no conclusive results. A meeting of the TIAG is planned for the Stavanger Colloquium and these issues will be discussed then.
      Action: Rasmus

    7. Developing countries contributors' meeting (item 13.b)

      8. Elizabeth reported that the intention was to complete the developing countries survey before organizing the meeting.

    8. Improvement of the comments and criticisms web site (14.b)

      9. Chris informed the group that the version of the site was expected to go live the day after this meeting. It will include better navigation features. Chris will email the IMSG members about the new site and then announce it more widely.
      Action: Chris

      The possible ways of submitting comments for the site were discussed. The site allows the addition of a comment directly to another comment, but it was unclear if it is possible to create a comment for a previously un-commented review directly from the site, from the free abstract, or only from the full review. It was decided to recommend that the comments and criticisms system should also be fully accessible from the freely available abstracts of reviews. Chris agreed to clarify the issues raised and discuss them with the Comments and Criticisms Advisory Group.
      Action: Chris

      It was discussed which comments should be entered in RevMan and published with the review. Chris clarified that this is the decision of the Criticisms editor. There are currently no guidelines for editors on this matter, but such guidelines should be developed.
      Action: Chris

      The archiving of comments to previous versions of reviews was discussed, and Chris clarified that the comments stay on the web site. It was discussed if comments that have been dealt with can be marked as such, and it was decided that it should be up to the Criticisms editors to indicate when web comments are out of date. The comments published in reviews should only be those relevant to the current version of a review.

  5. RevMan 4.2

    1. RevMan 4.2 as mandatory release

      2. Mark suggested that RevMan 4.2 be made a mandatory release, as this would ensure that Update Software only received data in one format. Monica clarified that it is always mandatory for editorial bases of Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs) to upgrade to the latest version, which means that all data submitted to Update Software would be in Revman 4.2 format anyway because it has to come through an editorial base.

      Chris suggested that an argument in favour of a mandatory release was the new statistical method (generic inverse variance), which might be preferable for many reviews. Mike expressed his opinion that only a small proportion of reviewers would need the method.

      Sonja reminded the group that mandatory releases involved a large extra workload for CRGs. Rasmus clarified that there would be no problem with reviewers using RevMan 4.1 and the editorial base using RevMan 4.2 as long the editorial base did not introduce any of the new features into the reviews of reviewers who use RevMan 4.1. He pointed out that even if a review is moved between RevMan 4.1 and RevMan 4.2, no information would be lost. The effect would simply be that the new features would be hidden when viewing the review in RevMan 4.1. He also clarified that upgrading to RevMan 4.2 is simple, with no conversion of reviews needed

      It was agreed to release RevMan 4.2 as a non-mandatory release and, although Mark registered his disagreement with this decision, he agreed to proceed on this basis.

    2. Raw or calculated data

      3. Mark informed the group that Update Software would be able to accept raw data and perform all the calculations needed for publishing the analyses, including the new generic inverse variance method, but that they would prefer RevMan 4.2 to generate calculated data. If they were to accept raw data, they would request a guarantee that the format would not change for two years. Mike explained that such a guarantee could only be given by the Steering Group, and that he thought they would be unlikely to do so.

      Rasmus suggested two options: either proceed as planned with two different versions of analyses software in RevMan and in The Cochrane Library, trusting that they have been sufficiently tested to produce identical results; or alternatively, that the Nordic Cochrane Centre receives all the raw data and performs the calculations using RevMan Analyses and then supplies Update Software with the calculated data.

      It was agreed that RevMan 4.2 should submit all analyses data as raw data, to be calculated by Update Software. Mark estimated that Update Software would be able to handle RevMan 4.2 submissions for issue 1, 2003 of The Cochrane Library.

    3. Image files

      4. The TIAG does not recommend that RevMan should enforce a size restrictions on which image files can be added as additional figures. Mark noted that the lack of restrictions may cause difficulties, but Rasmus clarified that the recommendation was approved by the Update Software representative on the TIAG.

      Mark confirmed that Update Software will be able to handle the PNG file format for additional figures.

    4. Text formatting in 16-bit version of The Cochrane Library

      5. Mark informed the group that the subscript and superscript text formatting feature cannot be published in the 16-bit version of The Cochrane Library. However, the feature can still be implemented in RevMan 4.2 because Update Software expect to discontinue the production of a 16-bit version. Upon Monica's request, he clarified that the 16-bit version is being dropped for a number of reasons: it is too large for a CD-ROM, very few subscribers use Windows 3.1, and it restricts the publishing of special text formatting. It was suggested that the Windows 3.1 user base might be larger in developing countries, but Mark reported that the latest issue of the WHO Reproductive Health Library had been published in a 32-bit only version without any complaints.

    5. Symbols in text

      6. Update Software should confirm which text symbols they will be able to handle, so only those are made available in RevMan. Rasmus agreed to write to Lois requesting such a list.
      Action: Rasmus

    6. Multi-user version of Revman 4.2

      7. RevMan 4.2 has been developed from the standard single-user version of Revman 4.1 and does not have multi-user functionality. The possibility of editorial bases continuing to use the multi-user version of RevMan 4.1 after RevMan 4.2 is released was discussed, but was strongly discouraged since they would not be able to view any of the new features. Rasmus reported that his impression of multi-user RevMan 4.1 is that it is not very successful. It is very hard to reliably modify the existing code to work well with multiple users. The issue was deferred for further discussion at the RAG meeting which would take place in the middle of this IMSG meeting.

    7. RevMan 5

      8. The possible release date for a version 5 of RevMan was discussed. Depending on the overall course for development of the IMS in the future, it may not necessarily be a stand alone program based on RevMan 4. Either way, it would probably require at least two years of development time.

    At this point the meeting was ajourned to be resumed after the RAG meeting at 15.15.

  6. Matters arising from the RAG meeting

    7. These were dealt with as they arose during the IMSG meeting and are minuted accordingly.

  7. Considerations and recommendations for figures in Cochrane Reviews: graphs of statistical data

    8. Julian has on the behalf of the SMG prepared the document "Considerations and recommendations for figures in Cochrane Reviews: graphs of statistical data", which was circulated as a background paper for this meeting. He asked the group to send him any comments before 5th April. Julian will then pass the document on to Mike, who will email it to the Handbook Advisory Group. It will then go from the Handbook Advisory Group to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group for final approval.
    Action: Everyone

    1. Guidance on additional figures

      2. It was agreed that guidance on the use of additional figures will be neccessary. The guidance should cover both the editorial aspect of which figures to include and the technical aspect of image quality. The overall responsibility for such a document should lie with the Handbook Advisory Group, but Mark agreed to to take the lead in generating the document. Jacob volunteered his help in preparing the section on image quality.
      Action: Mark

    2. Image editors

      3. Jacob suggested that Collaborative Review Groups should be encouraged to identify an "images editor", who have suffient knowledge to ensure that all images published are of adequate quality. After discussion, it was thought that this role could be fulfilled by the RGC, group statistician, or a copy editor (either someone within the Review Group or, possibly, a central person).

  8. Testing of RevMan Analyses

    1. Internal testing

      2. The testing of RevMan Analyses by two statisticians under the aegis of Julian will be completed before the beta version is released.

    2. Beta testing

      3. Rasmus clarified that the material for beta testers will also encourage them to test the analyses.

    3. Parent database testing

      4. Rasmus suggested that it might be possible to centrally test RevMan Analyses with all the data from the Parent database against a data file provided by Update Software. The latter would contain calculated data generated by Update Software's new routine(s). It was agreed that this should be done as soon as the new routine(s) from Update Software are available.
      Action: Rasmus

  9. Results from the Needs Assessment Survey

    10. A report on the results of the Needs Assessment Survey prepared by Mike, Julian, Tess and Phil had been circulated as a background paper for this meeting, and the group thanked the authors for their work. Mike summarised discussions that had taken place in the RAG meeting to note that the recommendations of the report were generally shared by the RAG. Mike clarified that when the terms ModMan and RevMan are used in the report, this was as shorthand for "a tool for compiling and submitting the modules (including reviews) of CRGs" and "a review authoring tool", respectively, which was how the original survey questions had been phrased. He also clarified that the recommendations in the report were strictly based on the data available from the survey, and that it was now for the IMSG to decide on its recommendations which would be put to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group.

    1. IMSG recommendations

      2. The individual items in the report were discussed, resulting in the following recommendations:

      Ranking

      The IMSG acknowledged that the results of the survey support the ranking of priorities into a top and second level, but agreed that because many of the issues are interrelated, it would not use such a separation for its recommendations, and that all of these should be considered high priority. The IMSG recommendations are listed in the same order as in the report of the survey, but this does not indicate a ranking.

      Recommendations of the IMSG

      Re item 1
      The Cochrane Collaboration should develop an improved central system for the management of people's contact details.

      Re item 2
      The components of the Information Management System should be made more interlinked so that information in different components can be automatically shared among these parts.

      Re items 3 and 8
      The components of the Information Management System should allow users to work in existing, popular software as much as possible (e.g. for word processing, reference management and statistical analysis).

      Re item 5
      The Cochrane Collaboration should continue to develop and support the tools for compiling and submitting the modules of CRGs (including reviews) and the descriptions of activity of other Cochrane entities.

      Re item 6
      The Cochrane Collaboration should consider how best to support the need for systems to track reviews within CRGs.

      Re item 7
      The Cochrane Collaboration should develop, and encourage the development of systems for handling contact information that are based on clearly defined standards for exchange of information; rather than supporting all the systems for managing contact information which are used locally within Cochrane entities. (See item 1.)

      Re item 9
      The Cochrane Collaboration should begin to develop a Collaboration-wide register of studies. (Currently, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register is not a study based register of studies.)

      Other action

      In addition to the above, the IMSG fully agrees with "Recommendations" 4 and 10 in the report of the survey: namely, that there should be additional surveying of people in developing countries, and that the information in the free text responses should be shared more widely.

      These recommendations will be presented to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group at their meeting in April 2002, by the Steering Group representatives on the IMSG.
      Action: Gerd, Mike

    2. Responsibility for trial register

      3. It was agreed to propose to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group that the IMSG should be responsible for the software aspects of the development of a study based trial register. This should be in liaison with the Central/CCTR Advisory Group and the Central/CCTR Advisory Group should be represented on the IMSG.
      Action: Monica

      An important first step in developing the trial register will be agreeing on a standard data definition for study based records.

  10. Developing countries survey

    11. Elizabeth had prepared a document on the plans for the survey of participants in the Cochrane Collaboration who are based in developing countries, which had been circulated with the background papers for the meeting.

    1. Time frame

      2. Elizabeth will amend the document with any changes suggested at this meeting and circulate it to the IMSG along with a set of proposed questions. She expected the time frame for the entire process to be 12 to 18 months
      Action: Elizabeth

    2. Scope and target

      3. It was discussed whether the scope of the survey would be wider than just software needs, and it was agreed that the focus should be on the barriers reviewers in developing countries encounter (for example language). In light of the wider scope, it was discussed whether other parts of the Cochrane Collaboration should be given the opportunity to add questions to the survey, but it was agreed that this would risk making the survey too large, which could lower the response rate. The primary target of the survey will be active reviewers, potential reviewers and people who did not get beyond registering an interest in doing a review.
      Action: Elizabeth

  11. Intellectual property rights and the IMSG

    12. Mark circulated a document with a clarification of copyright issues for Cochrane reviews.

    1. Synopses

      2. The copyright on synopses is still awaiting clarification.

    2. Additional figures

      3. It will be up to the reviewers to ensure that they do not use copyrighted material without permission. The permission for publication form should be changed to include a statement that they have done so.
      Action: Mike

    3. Permission for publication forms

      4. It was clarified that the responsibility for checking the Permission for publication forms lies with the review groups. Copies of the completed forms are filed at the Secretariat.

    4. Intellectual Property Rights

      5. It was decided that as a safety measure, people developing systems for the Collaboration should sign an agreement transferring the relevant IPR to the Collaboration. Mike and Monica agreed to draft such an agreement.
      Action: Mike, Monica

    5. Web site and copyrights

      6. David Booker asked that he be notified if anybody became aware of possible copyright problems in relation to the Collaboration web site.

  12. Update on the new contact management system

    1. Data protection

      2. Jacob had been informed that the Collaboration was already registered with the British data protection register, meaning that the Contact database may well be in compliance with EU regulations already. He was scheduled to to discuss the details of the registration with Jini Hetherington the following day (21 March 2002).

    2. Agreement on principles

      3. Jacob had submitted a list of principles for the contact database to the the Contact email list, but there had not been sufficient discussion on the list to conlude that a consensus had been reached. He agreed to recirculate the items and to try to stimulate further discussion. Jacob reported that he will now take a more proactive in approach in promoting the Contact Database's use, for instance with a poster in Stavanger.
      Action: Jacob

  13. IMSG financial report

    14. Monica presented her report, and there were no comments on it.

  14. Any other business

    1. Approval of minutes

      2. Monica reported that she will ask for approval of the draft minutes from all Group members from now on.
      Action: Monica

    2. David Booker's role

      3. It was discussed if David Booker should be a member of some of the advisory groups and subgroups to the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group. It was agreed to recommend that he should become a member of the Publishing Policy Group and an ex-officio member on the IMSG, to be invited to take part in IMSG meetings when this is appropriate (depending on items suggested by the IMSG or David himself). Funding needs to be secured to allow David to attend IMSG meetings under these circumstances.
      Action: Monica, David

  15. Date of next meeting

    16. It was agreed to try to find a suitable date in June for a meeting to take place at Heathrow airport.
    Action: Monica
Document Actions