Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → RAG → Minutes → RAG minutes, 2 December 1999
 

RAG minutes, 2 December 1999

Minutes of the RevMan Advisory Group Meeting held at the UK Cochrane Centre on Thursday 2 December 1999

Minutes approved on ?

Present: Clive Adams, Phil Alderson, Chris Cates, Mike Clarke (Chair), Jon Deeks (substitute for Julian Higgins), Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson, Heather Maxwell, Rasmus Moustgaard, Mark Starr, Lindsay Stead, Phil Wiffen .

Apologies: Seokyung Hahn, Julian Higgins, Peter Langhorne, Paul Whatling, David Wilkinson, Sue Wilson.

In attendance: Claire Allen (Minutes).

Contents:
Welcome and introductions
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes of last meeting (28 April 1999)
Action points and matters arising from last meeting not on this agenda
Recommendations on funnel plots
Recommendations on other statistical issues
Organisation of future testing of software
Release of RevMan/MetaView 4.1
Amendments/additions to the wish list for RevMan 4.1
Documentation within RevMan
Manipulation of graphs
Use of RevMan by people outside of Cochrane entities
Next generation of the Cochrane Collaboration's Information Management System
Campbell Collaboration
Remit and membership of RAG
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome and introductions

    2. Mike explained that Julian Higgins had replaced Jon Deeks as the representative of the Statistical Methods Group on the RevMan Advisory Group, but that Jon was acting as substitute for Julian at this meeting.

  2. Approval of agenda

    3. This was approved and it was noted that a discussion of the problems associated with the release of RevMan 4 would take place under item 4 (Matters arising from last meeting).

  3. Approval of minutes of last meeting (28 April 1999)

    4. The minutes of the meeting held on 28 April 1999 were approved, subject to correction of the spelling of Phil Wiffen's surname (not Whiffen). It was agreed that minutes from all RAG meetings could be posted on a dedicated web page maintained by the Nordic Cochrane Centre. However, the minutes need first to be approved by the participants, by email. It was also agreed that particular sections of the minutes could be excluded from such posting if RAG felt this was necessary. Mike, as convenor, should send the approved set of minutes to Jacob Riis. Jacob will convert the minutes of previous meetings and those from this meeting, into a standard format. This format will be made available to whoever takes the minutes at future meetings.
    Action: Mike, Jacob

  4. Action points and matters arising from last meeting not on this agenda

    5. Item 3a
    Mark pointed out that there may be some errors in the statistical formulae that are detailed in a document on the FTP site (statistical methods.pdf). Rasmus and Jon will liase about these. The final document will be included as a chapter in the second edition of Systematic Reviews, which should be published by the BMJ in 2000.
    Action: Jon, Rasmus

    Item 3b
    Monica and Chris are still trying to establish whether there is a mandate for developing in-house software for Criticisms editors, and thus what the mandate for the Criticisms Software Advisory Group should be. Chris is currently monitoring the need for dedicated software through the criteds discussions list, and will keep the SDG informed. It had been suggested that the database held in San Francisco could be opened to all Comments and Criticism Editors. Chris had emailed the comcrit discussion list about this and a positive response had been received.

    Item 5g
    Rasmus confirmed that there was no link to a web site from the help file. It was agreed that this should be added to the wish list and that Jacob should investigate its implementation.
    Action: Jacob

    Item 8
    Discussion took place on the process for preparing and publishing synopses. Mark clarified that if a synopsis had been entered into RevMan and submitted to Update Software within a review, it would be published on issue 1, 2000 of The Cochrane Library. It was agreed that Mike should seek clarification on the process for the preparation and publication of synopses from the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group, the ModMan Advisory Group, the Software Development Group and Hilda Bastian. It was also agreed that Mike should recommend that synopses should be submitted along with a CRG's module. Mike also agreed to seek advice on the appropriate location for the display of synopses on The Cochrane Library.
    Action: Mike

    Item 13a
    Rasmus and Monica will prepare documentation on how to create a Hirex format file for the importing of contacts details into RevMan.
    Action: Monica, Rasmus

    Item 14d
    Mark agreed to prepare a flyer explaining the changes in Cochrane reviews that have resulted from the upgrading of RevMan. This would probably be packaged with issue 1, 2000 of The Cochrane Library but should be sent to PPG in the first instance.
    Action: Mark

    Item 20
    David Badger has prepared training materials for RevMan 4.0 and MetaView 4.0. Rasmus agreed to use these as a model for training materials for RevMan 4.1.
    Action: Rasmus

    Review of the release of Cochrane review writing software

    This issue had been discussed at the meeting of the ModMan Advisory Group the previous day and Sonja outlined their conclusions. Monica stressed that the most important lesson is the ability to run an old and new system in parallel. It was agreed that at the reviewer level, they should have the choice to use either the most recent version of RevMan or the new version for an individual review. If the lead reviewer has more than one review, they could use the two systems simultaneously (but not for the same review). It was suggested, and subsequently agreed, that one year after the 'live' release of new software, it would become mandatory.

    It was also suggested that CRGs should be able to submit modules including reviews prepared both in the most recent version of RevMan and the new version. If necessary, reviews prepared in the most recent version of RevMan could be converted centrally. Training for Review Group Coordinators (RGCs) remains an important issue and it was suggested that software should not be cascaded to reviewers until RGCs felt familiar with it. The submission of reviews in the new software would become mandatory on the first module deadline after one year from the 'live' release.

    It was clarified that one of the first fixes to RevMan 4 after its initial release in July 1999 (ie re-compiling it in Visual Fox Pro 6 instead of 5) had not been pre-planned before release.

    Mike agreed to draft a letter acknowledging the difficulties encountered by users (and supporters of users) of RevMan/MetaView 4. This would include an apology for the inconvenience caused and a confirmation that lessons have been learnt. This would be submitted to Cochrane News and Cochrane email lists. Mike agreed to send this to RAG over the weekend and comments would be required by Tuesday 7 December so that a revised version could be recirculated before submission to Cochrane News on the deadline date of Friday 10 December. The letter should clarify that those responsible for the release of RevMan did not know that the software would cause the problems it did when released. If they had known this, the release date would have been postponed. Furthermore, it was agreed that, in the future, Cochrane software should not be released until it has been adequately tested and a sufficient gap will be built into the development programme for bug fixing. In addition, it was agreed that the 'live' release date should not be set until much of the testing had been completed.
    Action: Mike

  5. Recommendations on funnel plots

    6. The recommendation of the Statistics and the (possible) Reporting Bias Methods Groups was accepted. It was agreed that the SMG will provide documentation for warning dialogue boxes when funnel plots were selected in RevMan. They will also liase on the updating of the relevant section of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. It was agreed that if totals for outcomes are not selected, the funnel plot option would be disabled and a message to that effect would be displayed.
    Action: Julian, Rasmus

  6. Recommendations on other statistical issues

    1. Paper from Julian Higgins
      Thanks were expressed to Julian for his survey of the Statistics Methods Group and his paper reporting the findings. The recommendation that a method for doing meta-analyses using inverse-variance-weighted average in RevMan was accepted but it was noted that this would require a change to the structure of a Cochrane Review (the addition of a fifth data type). The request should be added to the wish list.
      Action: Jacob Riis

      It was agreed to recommend that the software should not be revised to include meta-regression. However, it was recognised that reviewers should continue to be able to do meta-regression in a separate software package and to report the findings in their review. It was agreed that it is important that any such analyses should be done with the help of a statistician.

    2. What should be the default odds ratio in MetaView
      It was agreed that the default option for odds ratios in MetaView should be changed from the Peto to the Mantel Haenszel method.
      Action: Rasmus

  7. Organisation of future testing of software

    8. It was agreed that Phil Wiffen would try to find good evidence on the procedures to follow when beta testing and releasing new software, in order to recommend how this should be done for future Cochrane software.
    Action: Phil W.

  8. Release of RevMan/MetaView 4.1

    9. It was agreed that a date should not be set for a 'live' release of the packaged RevMan 4.1 and MetaView 4.1 until the software had been adequately tested. This testing would reflect Phil's findings. Each CRG will be asked for a list of names and addresses of reviewers so that CD-ROMs can be sent directly to them by the NCC. It was agreed that CRG editorial bases would be able to test the new version before its release to reviewers. The software would be mandatory for all editorial bases (with no transition period)

  9. Amendments/additions to the wish list for RevMan 4.1

    10. It had been possible to implement all items in section A of the wish list dated 15 November in time for the release of RevMan 4.1, apart from A.1 (full network version) and A.11 (addition of extra right click menus). Rasmus demonstrated the new implementations and the following comments were made.

    A.9 Sonja raised the concern that some RGCs or reviewers may have entered a person's initials in both the box for their first name and the box for their middle initials because the content of the initials' box was not previously displayed.
    A.10 Clive raised the issue of the length of time the program took to back up. Mike suggested that issues such as this should be monitored in the future development of RevMan.
    A.17 It was agreed to change 'Publication Form' to 'Permission for Publication Form'. It was agreed to discuss the automatic inclusion of information from the 'Conflict of Interest' box in this form, at a future meeting.
    Action: Mike, Rasmus

    B.1 Not supported by RAG. No one spoke in favour of copying large chunks of text from one review to another.
    B.2 Not supported. It was agreed that no fields should be automatically completed if 'Cochrane Review' was chosen as the reference type. However, it was agreed that the feature of using the Ctrl key with the up or down arrow to move between fields in references should be highlighted in the appropriate section of the User Guide and the on-line help system.
    Action: Rasmus
    B.3 Will be implemented, as suggested.
    B.4 Not supported since it would slow down the operation of RevMan.

    C.1 This should go onto the wish list.
    C.2 It was agreed that although this could not be implemented in RevMan 4.1, the RAG strongly supported the wish.
    C.3 This should go onto the wish list.
    C.4 It was agreed that although this could not be implemented in RevMan 4.1, the RAG strongly supported the wish.
    C.5 This should go onto the wish list.
    C.6 Low priority. There was little support for the addition of a published notes field to references.
    C.7 Not supported. It was agreed to delete this from the list.
    C.8 Mark agreed to check whether column headings in Additional tables would wrap or be truncated when displayed in The Cochrane Library. For RevMan, it was agreed that column headings should be truncated and, if possible, the width of column headings should be increased.
    C.9 Not supported. It was agreed to delete this from the list.
    C.10 Not supported. It was agreed to delete this from the list.

    Action: Rasmus, Jacob, Mark

    Additional items for the Wishlist Sonja suggested being able to see the complete box of reviewer details so that when RevMan asked you to compare details, both sets of details would be seen in full.
    Sonja suggested that the list of references to studies in the drop down box used for adding links should show the different types of study separately.
    Sonja suggested that a facility should be included to add footnotes to Additional tables. Rasmus pointed out that this would require a structural change but it could be added to the Wishlist.

    Action: Jacob, Rasmus

  10. Documentation within RevMan

    11. It was agreed that the RevMan discussion list should be self-archiving. Monica pointed out that this should be possible from early 2000. It was agreed that the new statistical sections in the Handbook should be simple to use. It was agreed that the Help files in RevMan and MetaView should direct people to look in the Handbook. It was agreed that any FAQs that had arisen with RevMan 4.0 should be added to the Help system for RevMan 4.1. Monica will send an email requesting suggestions for FAQs. Action Rasmus, Jacob, Monica

  11. Manipulation of graphs

    1. Guidance on good outcomes
      Jon and Chris hope to do research on the issue of displaying adverse or non-adverse events over the coming year and will report their findings to future meetings of RAG.
      Action: Chris

    2. Exporting graphs into PowerPoint
      It was agreed to add this to the Wish list. In the meantime, Mark will prepare instructions on how to put graph from MetaView into an application such as PaintShopPro.
      Action: Mark, Jacob

    3. Increased customisation of graphs
      Mark's instructions on moving graphs into packages such as PaintShopPro should help users to customise graphs. In addition, it was noted that an ability to include additional graphs or pictures in Cochrane Reviews would be beneficial. Mike and Jon will liase on preparing a proposal to take to the CCSG.
      Action: Jon, Mike

  12. Use of RevMan by people outside of Cochrane entities

    13. Monica explained that a warning appears on the ftp sites advising people that, unless they are working within a Cochrane entity, they will not be supported in the use of RevMan. In addition, a warning about the problems in MetaView 4 has been posted on the web site. RevMan 4.1 will also contain a licence agreement outlining this.
    Action: Rasmus

  13. Next generation of the Cochrane Collaboration's Information Management System

    14. It was agreed that additional documentation is needed on this issue before the RAG can discuss it adequately. The ModMan Advisory Group had generally been in favour of the proposal, but had expressed some concerns at their meeting the day before and these were outlined. It was agreed that an exploration of the future needs for the Information Management System is a priority and that funding should be sought for this exploration. It was agreed that a fuller document should be discussed by e-mail in the first instance and that a special RAG meeting, devoted to this subject, should take place in the first two weeks of February.
    Action: all

  14. Campbell Collaboration

    15. It was noted that they might be opportunities for joint development of software with the emerging Campbell Collaboration and that this will be closely monitored.
    Action: Mike, Monica

  15. Remit and membership of RAG

    16. Seokyung Hahn has stood down from the RAG. As ever, if people have suggestions for additional members, they should contact Mike.
    Action: all

  16. Date of next meeting

    17. There will be a special meeting of RAG in February to discuss the proposals for the development of a new Information Management System. The next regular meeting should be in April. Mike will circulate dates for these as soon as possible. Action Mike

RAG minutes | MinMan home

Document Actions