Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → Minutes → SDG minutes, 3 October 2000
 

SDG minutes, 3 October 2000

Minutes of the Software Development Group meeting held at the Nordic Cochrane Centre on 3 October 2000

1st DRAFT, 18 Oct. 2000

Present: Chris Cates, Mike Clarke (chair), Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson, Julian Higgins, Mark Starr, Phil Wiffen.

Apologies: Gerd Antes.

In attendance: Rasmus Moustgaard, Jacob Riis (minutes).

 

Contents:
1. Welcome and apologies
2. Potential conflicts of interest
3. Minutes/report of last meetings
4. Funding for SDG meetings
5. RevMan 4.1 progress report
6. Update on plans for a new version of ModMan
7. Update on needs assessment survey
8. Progress report on pilot for contact management system prepared by the NCC
9. New structure for ModMan for other entities
10. Cochrane Collaboration business plan
11. Any other business
12. Date and venue of next meeting

 

  1. Welcome and apologies

    Peter Langhorne has been replaced by Gerd Antes as Steering Group representative on the Software Development Group. Gerd was unable to attend this meeting. Mike was chair of this meeting because of uncertainty about Monica's participation during her maternity leave.

  2. Potential conflicts of interest

    As previous except:

    • Funding for the Nordic Cochrane Centre has improved, so the positions there are no longer dependent on SDG decisions.
    • Julian clarified how the conflict of interest statement for him should be shown on the Internet.

  3. Minutes/report of last meetings

    The minutes from the meeting on 30 May will be circulated for approval along with the minutes from this meeting.

    Matters arising from the minutes of the meeting 5-6 April:

    1. Item 4.a, Criticism archives:
      Chris reported that all criticisms will be included on the new website, see agenda item 11.
    2. Item 4.b:
      Ongoing
    3. Item 4.d:
      Ongoing
    4. Item 6, Official document defining the structure and technical contents of a Cochrane review:
      There was some discussion of whether there still was a need for a technical specification (e.g. XML file format) for a review. It was agreed that such a specification, including which graphs are possible, will be needed in the future as new statistical methods are added and new review-authoring software emerges. Currently, the working definition of the structure and contents of a Cochrane review is what is published in The Cochrane Library. Julian reported that the Statistical MG is working on a document describing how a forest plot, a funnel plot, and possibly additional graphs should look in a Cochrane review.
    5. Item 8, Standards/procedures for testing of software:
      Phil has identified a groups of students that might be willing to act as beta testers for software in the future.
    6. Item 9, Alternative models to the next generation of the Information Management System:
      Mark will send Update's XML specifications to Rasmus.
      Action: Mark
    7. Item 10.d, Definition of the data and analysis needed for the inverse-variance-weighted average method:
      This cannot be implemented before RevMan 5 so the need for the specification is dependent on the timetable (currently not planned) for that software.
    8. Item 13.c, Minute taking:
      Monica reported that Claire Allen from the Secretariat has graciously accepted to take minutes at UK based meetings of the SDG and its Advisory Groups, if these do not conflict with other secretariat tasks.

    Matters arising from the minutes of the meeting 30 May:

    The issue of including additional graphs in Cochrane reviews will be discussed by the Statistics Methods Group in Cape Town. Mike and Julian will report back at the next SDG meeting.
    Action: Mike, Julian

  4. Funding for SDG meetings

    The Steering Group (CCSG) will discuss the memorandum of 8 June in Cape Town. Mike reported that funding for all subgroups and Advisory Groups of the CCSG will also be discussed at that meeting. He mentioned that it would be helpful to have an estimate of the cost of SDG meetings. Phil suggested £6000, but no final estimate was decided on. It was agreed that the expansion of the Group's membership is dependent on the availability of central funding. Mark noted that future development of the Information Management System may require a substantial rise in meeting frequency.

  5. RevMan 4.1 progress report

    1. RevMan 4.1
      1. Rasmus reported that approximately 2000 CD-ROMs have been distributed in response to requests from review groups and reviewers. So far only one minor bugs has been discovered and there is currently no need for any patches.
      2. Sonja requested that true multi-user functionality be added to the wishlist.
        Action: Jacob
      3. Update Software have experienced some problems with importing reviews from RevMan 4.1, and Mark will pass the relevant information on to Rasmus for further investigation.
        Action: Mark
      4. Sonja has experienced problems with Unique IDs for reviews being undermined by reviewers submitting different versions of the same review. It was suggested that CRGs could send reviewers the version of their review that was submitted for publication, and that when new titles are registered, the CRG could create the review and send it to the reviewer.
    2. MetaView 4.1
      1. It was confirmed that the responsibility for MetaView 4.1 still lies with Update Software, and that they should fix any serious bugs. They are not required to add any new functionality. The SDG will decide what constitutes a serious bug.
      2. One bug is currently known and has been reported to Update Software: Printing stops after outcomes without numerical data. If additional bugs are found, they will be discussed at the SDG meeting in December.
      3. Mark confirmed that MetaView 4.1 will be used on issue 1, 2001 of The Cochrane Library, although he could not guarantee it for the CD-ROM version.
      4. Since the Internet version will use version 4.1, Monica will send out a reminder to reviewers about the possibility of setting reviewer-defined defaults for each outcome.
        Action: Monica
    3. Agenda items to be tabled for the December meeting:
      1. Alternative software tools.
      2. Additional graphs.

  6. Update on plans for a new version of ModMan

    1. Responsibility for ModMan 4.0:
      1. It was clarified that ModMan 4.0 is still the responsibility of Update Software. This includes support and bug fixes, but not further development.
      2. The currently identified bugs should be published on a web page. Until that page is available, Jini Hetherington will be asked to inform new CRGs about the bugs.
        Action: Mark, Jini
    2. Development of ModMan 5:
      1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre is responsible for further development of ModMan. It has already been agreed that they should be given access to the code for ModMan 4.0. Mark will ask Lois Sims to make this available.
        Action: Mark, Lois
      2. Sonja presented results from a survey of Review Group Coordinators. One recommendation is that the review tracking process should be separate from ModMan.
      3. Mark noted that plans for central copy editing would have to be kept in mind when outlining the tracking process.
      4. Since tracking is related to contact management, it was agreed that the division of responsibility should be: the ModMan Advisory Group (MAG) should oversee the development of tracking software - in cooperation with the proposed Contacts Advisory Group, while the latter should be responsible for contact database development - in cooperation with the MAG.
      5. The MAG should investigate if tracking may be performed using existing (commercial) software.
        Action: Sonja
      6. The next meeting of the MAG will be during the Cape Town Colloquium.

  7. Update on needs assessment survey

    1. A survey is being drafted by the ad-hoc working group convened by Mike. The next version will be circulated to the SDG. Following further revision as necessary, the next step will be to pilot the survey on a representative sample of members of the Collaboration.
    2. The intention with the survey is not to convert its results directly into specifications.
    3. The survey contains questions on the following elements:
      • people's role and experience
      • preparation of reviews and the use of RevMan
      • preparation of modules and the use of ModMan
      • comments and criticisms
      • ideas for future developments of the Information Management System
    4. The target audience for the pilot should be around 50 people from among the following
      • people who have avoided using the software (these be identified through colleagues or among people responsible for registering titles that did not progress any further)
      • RGCs for large CRGs
      • RGCs for small CRGs
      • coordinating editors
      • reviewers
    5. Increasing response rate:
      1. Attempts will be made to identify people to take part in the pilot survey in Cape Town.
      2. Rasmus suggested that the pilot should include the response option: "I will not complete this survey because ..."
      3. Suggestions to increase the response rate to the survey included a help hotline, a manual for explaining the questions in greater detail (which could be made available on a web site), and on-site or telephone interviews.
      4. Monica suggested that the survey be sent out via centres.
    6. It was agreed that the change of funding status for the NCC reduced the urgency around doing the needs assessment. The pilot should be done in coming months so that the full survey can go out early next year. With the aim being to have a report by June 2001.

  8. Progress report on pilot for contact management system prepared by the NCC

    1. It was clarified that this was a pilot, and although it was being developed using Cold Fusion and Access, the technology used was subject to change if an actual implementation was decided upon. The pilot will include modules for other entities than CRGs. The immediate purpose of the pilot is to replace HIREx as the Collaboration's central contact database, but the structure will allow it to expand to becoming the backbone of the next generation of the IMS.
    2. The current status of HIREx is that the German Cochrane Centre updates the contact databook, but no new version of the software will be available from its makers, Infoward.
    3. The suggested users of the pilot are the UKCC, the Secretariat and the NCC, plus any volunteers who can be recruited at the workshop in Cape Town.
    4. The establishment of a Contacts Advisory Group has been proposed to the CCSG.

  9. New structure for ModMan for other entities

    1. No separate work has been done on this as it will be included in the contact database pilot.
    2. Update's XML definition of the SG module should be sent to the NCC.
      Action: Mark

  10. Cochrane Collaboration business plan

    It was noted that a report on the steps necessary for developing a business plan will be circulated to all entities within the next month.

  11. Any other business

    1. Comments and criticisms:
      1. It is hoped that the Comments and Criticisms system will move towards a web site like the eBMJ's. Users' criticisms will be briefly stored before being quickly vetted (for example, for obscenities) by Chris or Iain Chalmers, where after they will be posted on the site, and the criticism editor and editorial base of the group notified, along with the SFCC. The site will archive all criticisms made. Each CRG's criticism editor would decide what should be included in The Cochrane Library.
      2. Reviews should link to the web archive.
      3. It was discussed whether the criticisms already dealt with should be indicated or if it would suffice to have the latest at the top. The former was preferred.
      4. Chris will investigate whether the web site will show what issue of The Cochrane Library the version of the review being criticised was published in, and if the criticisms will have headings that could be suggested by the person submitting the criticism.
        Action: Chris
      5. It was discusssed whether the text presented when submitting criticisms on The Cochrane Library should change because of the new system. It was agreed that this will not be necessary yet.
    2. Timetable for IMS:
      1. Monica noted that the preparation of a full timetable has to wait for the results of the needs assessment.
      2. The likelihood of a RevMan 5 or a RevMan 4.2 was discussed. A three year period of stability has been guaranteed, so the earliest point a RevMan 5 could be released would be in 18 months. There are currently no plans for such a release. The items currently on the wishlist for RevMan could be implemented in a version 4.2. This will be discussed by the RAG in December.
      3. Timetable for contact database:
        • First showing: Cape Town colloquium
        • Pilot begins: end of 2000
        • Feedback: May/June meeting
      4. Timetable for tracking software:
        • Not possible to estimate before more is known. (Development may not be necessary at all.)
      5. Timetable for ModMan 5:
        • Beta version: to be discussed at May/June meeting
    3. Meerkat:
      1. The 5 CRGs involved in the EU-psi mental health project are likely to use Meerkat.
      2. The UKCC currently supports Meerkat, and will continue to do so if enough CRGs use it.
      3. A workshop has been organised to demonstrate Meerkat in Cape Town.
      4. The possibility of using Meerkat to track reviews might be investigated.
    4. Resource tracking:

      It was agreed that it would be helpful to log the resources used to develop software in the Collaboration and their success rate. This should be discussed at future SDG meetings.

    5. Report to CCSG:
      1. The draft report prepared by Monica was discussed.
      2. Access to the SDG web site (www.cochrane.dk/sdg) will no longer be password restricted.
        Action: Jacob
      3. The time scale for the needs assessment survey, and a statement about using MetaView 4.1 on The Cochrane Library should be added.
        Action: Monica
      4. The report was approved with the above amendments. Monica will send it to the secretariat immediately following the meeting.
        Action: Monica

  12. Date and venue of next meeting

    1. The advantages and disadvantages of meeting outside the UK (such as in Copenhagen), were discussed. The UK based majority of the group expressed a preference for UK meetings, because of the resources needed for attending meetings elsewhere, but it was felt to be reasonable for some meetings to take place outside of the UK (perhaps once a year).
    2. The next meeting will take place 8 December at the UKCC meeting room. Monica noted that she would not be able to attend this meeting without resources external to the NCC because of the formal requirements associated with maternity leave.
Document Actions