Personal tools
You are here: Home → IMSG → RAG → Minutes → RAG minutes, 28 April 1999
 

RAG minutes, 28 April 1999

Minutes of the RevMan Advisory Group Meeting held at the UK Cochrane Centre on 28 April 1999

Minutes approved on ?

Present: Phil Alderson, Chris Cates, Mike Clarke (chair), Jon Deeks, Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson, Heather Maxwell, Rasmus Moustgaard, Mark Starr, Lindsay Stead, Paul Whatling, Phil Whiffen, Sue Wilson.

Apologies: Peter Langhorne (5 April), Phil Wiffen.

In attendance: Jacob Riis (minutes).

Contents:
Welcome and apologies
Approval/correction of the minutes of the last meeting
Matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting
Definition of substantive update
Revman 4.0 draft user guide
Appendix for User Guide on working with co-reviewers
New reference type for Cochrane Reviews and Protocols
Preparation of synopses
Sections to include in a Cochrane protocol
Input of issue of The Cochrane Library on which protocol and review were first published
Status of the Notes field
Checklist for conversion
Importing of contact details for co-reviewers
Conversion of references from RevMan 3.x to RevMan 4.0
Insertion of automatic text on conversion
Testing on RevMan 4.0 beta
Current status of MetaView 4.0 beta
Funnel plots
Documentation for MetaView 4.0
Tutorial for RevMan 4.0 (and MetaView 4.0)
Plans for release of Rev Man 4.0
Update on the revision of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook
Preparation of the next generation of the software for preparing Cochrane Reviews
Any other business
Date of next meeting

  1. Welcome and apologies

    2. Mike welcomed everyone, and especially Heather Maxwell, Paul Whatling, Phil Whiffen and Sue Wilson as new members of the group. Apologies from Clive Adams, David Wilkinson and Seokyung Hahn. Thanks were expressed in her absence to Lelia Duley, who has stepped down, for the part she has played in the group since it was first set up, and also to Jon Deeks ,who notified the group that he wished to step down.

  2. Approval/correction of the minutes of the last meeting

    3. The minutes of the last meeting (30 November 1998) were approved.

  3. Matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting

    1. Item 4b: Jon still needs to approve the document on the statistical methods used in MetaView.
      Action: Jon
    2. Item 5c: The mandate for the Comments and Criticisms Software Advisory Group is not finished yet. Monica and Chris will have something ready for the colloquium.
      Action: Monica
    3. Item 6b: Lelia and Rasmus have not been successful in obtaining comments from reviewers in developing countries using older computers.

  4. Definition of substantive update

    1. It was agreed to recommend the following definition of a substantive update: "...when the review was updated in such a way that you recommend that previous readers of the review should look at the new version." It was agreed that the decision on whether a change was a substantive update or not, needed to be a joint decision by the reviewer(s) and the editorial group. Mike will disseminate the above.
      Action: Mike
    2. Rasmus informed the group that by default the dialog box allowing you to mark a change is set to 'Don't record it'. Mark informed the group that only substantive updates are tagged on The Cochrane Library.

  5. Revman 4.0 draft user guide

    1. Everybody had been able to download the draft User Guide. Monica congratulated Mike, Jacob and Rasmus on their work and requested that she be removed from the list of authors.
      Action: Jacob
    2. Feedback on the User Guide should be sent to Jacob Riis by 20 May.
      Action: everyone
    3. It was discussed whether the use of screen dumps would add to the usefulness of the User Guide, but there was general agreement that large amounts of images would make the file size too big. Jacob will examine the possibility of minimizing the file size of images sufficiently for inclusion.
      Action: Jacob
    4. Chris volunteered to contribute material on which new features in RevMan 4.0 might seem confusing when moving from version 3.1.
      Action: Chris
    5. It was agreed that the User Guide and help file should include an introductory statement on how to use them, i.e. that the help file is intended for looking up specific issues, while the User Guide is intended for self-training.
      Action: Jacob
    6. Dissemination of the User Guide: Until now, RGCs have often printed the User Guide centrally and sent a paper copy to reviewers, but if the process is simple enough, they are likely to encourage individual reviewers to print it themselves. The CD-ROMs will contain viewers for Word97 and Acrobat format (the User Guide will be in both), but the viewers will not be installed automatically.
    7. If possible, the help file should include a link to a web site with updates.
      Action: Jacob, Rasmus
    8. The User Guide should explain how the new unique IDs work, and how the old review numbers can be used. A warning against importing the same review in 3.x format in separate copies of RevMan 4.0 should be included.
      Action: Jacob, Mike
    9. It was agreed that the appendix on reference formats should be shortened by leaving out all the irrelevant fields for each of the examples. The index of the appendix should be easier to use, perhaps with two indexes of reference formats, one ordered alphabetically, but with journal articles at the top, and the other ordered by reference type. There should be instructions on what to do with 'impossible' references. This appendix should also be made available as a separate document.
      Action: Jacob, Mike
    10. The section on importing references was unclear and needs expanding. An appendix describing how to export from ProCite, RefMan and EndNote should be added.
      Action: Jacob
    11. The User Guide should have an index.
      Action: Jacob

  6. Appendix for User Guide on working with co-reviewers

    1. The User Guide still needs an appendix on working with co-reviewers. The appendix will only deal with technical and practical issues, not interpersonal relationships. It will recommend that the contact reviewer should be responsible for the main version of a review. Therefore, co-reviewers should either circulate the main version and edit it incrementally or their separate edits will need to be combined into the main version by the contact reviewer. A particular concern is that co-reviewers now need Contact IDs, see below.
      Action: Mike
    2. Sending reviews back and forth between version 4.0 and version 3.1 of RevMan is risky and not recommended. The warning displayed when exporting to 3.1 format needs to be stronger.
      Action: Rasmus.
    3. It was agreed that the new unique ID should be displayed on the Title window, and be an option for the information panel on the Tree view.
      Action: Rasmus
    4. Sonja will ask Lois to include the unique ID on the Review tracking window in ModMan.
      Action: Sonja
    5. Chris offered to produce guidelines on using the Notes section for tracking the editorial process (see also item 11).
      Action: Chris
    6. Contact ID for co-reviewers:
      1. It was decided to use the term 'Contact ID' instead of the previous 'Reviewer ID'.
        Action: Rasmus
      2. It was decided that RevMan should allow the user to change the Contact ID for a contact and that this could also be done on import. Action : Rasmus

  7. New reference type for Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

    1. It was agreed that a ninth reference type, 'Cochrane review' should be added.
      Action: Rasmus
    2. It was agreed that the reference window should have each field in a separate box.
      Action: Rasmus
    3. The software should not automatically make any references primary.
      Action: Rasmus
    4. It was agreed that it should not be mandatory to select a primary reference and that the User Guide should reflect this.
      Action: Jacob

  8. Preparation of synopses

    1. Chris described the process used in the Airways CRG: first the reviewer is asked to provide a synopsis, if (s)he is unable to provide it, then others within the CRG are asked and as a final resort the Consumer Network is asked for help.
    2. Hilda Bastian of the Consumer Network is writing guidelines on how to prepare synopses.
    3. The group agreed that as the synopsis is part of the review, the editorial responsibility for it lies with the CRG, not the Consumer Network.
    4. Synopses are not mandatory for the October deadline, but how reviews without them will be published (with an empty heading, a standard statement, or other?) needs to be decided by the PPG.
      Action: Monica

  9. Sections to include in a Cochrane protocol

    1. It was agreed that this group does not recommend abstracts for protocols. This needs to be recommended to the Steering Group.
      Action: Mike, Monica
    2. It was suggested to let the review status determine which sections were accessible within RevMan. This will go on the RevMan wishlist for discussion in the future.
      Action: Jacob
    3. Only the relevant sections should be printed for a protocol.
      Action: Rasmus
    4. The only references to be published or printed for a protocol should be Additional references. This needs to be recommended to the Steering Group.
      Action: Mike, Monica

  10. Input of issue of The Cochrane Library on which protocol and review were first published

    11. It was agreed to use two fields with picklists. They will be blank initially as they are not mandatory.
    Action: Rasmus

  11. Status of the Notes field

    1. It was agreed to change the Notes section in the following manner: 'Private notes' will be replaced by 'Unpublished CRG notes' and 'Public notes' will be replaced by 'Published notes', which will be published on The Cochrane Library.
      Action: Rasmus
    2. If a review needs to be removed from an issue of The Cochrane Library, ModMan should have a tickbox for 'Only publish notes'. The reason for the removal should be given in the 'Public notes' field.
      Action: Sonja

  12. Checklist for conversion

    13. There should be a general checklist for checking and tracking the conversion of reviews from RevMan 3.x to 4.0. The present draft should be circulated for comments and then finalized.
    Action: Jacob

  13. Importing of contact details for co-reviewers

    14. It would be helpful if either RevMan or ModMan 4.0 were able to import contact details from other sources. Rasmus will investigate the possibility.
    Action: Rasmus

  14. Conversion of references from RevMan 3.x to RevMan 4.0

    1. Mike reported that approximately 90% of all references currently in Cochrane reviews and protocols on The Cochrane Library are journal articles, which makes journal articles a good choice as the default references type for importing. However, the proportion of these that are in the correct format for easy importing seems to be around 60-70%. A message will be sent out on the adminors list, encouraging people to start formatting the references now, to simplify the conversion process.
      Action: Mike
    2. The User Guide should include an explanation of how the conversion process works. The basic principle is that RevMan uses the punctuation to identify the various fields.
      Action: Jacob
    3. It was suggested that if a review had many references that would not import easily from RevMan 3.1 and also had those references in Procite, it might be easier to export them from ProCite using the RevMan output style and then import them into RevMan. The newly imported references could then be used to replace those already in RevMan. However, it was unclear if this would be any less work than correcting the references imported with the review. The User Guide should suggest this approach as a possibility.
      Action: Jacob
    4. Short title
      1. It was discussed whether the existing short titles should be kept somewhere on The Cochrane Library, as people might still want to search for them but it was unclear why they might want to do so.
      2. It was suggested that isssue 1, 2000 of The Cochrane Library should be accompanied by a flyer explaining the main changes arising from the upgrading of RevMan (such as loss of short titles). This needs to be recommended to the Publishing Policy Group.
        Action: Monica

  15. Insertion of automatic text on conversion

    1. It was agreed that RevMan should not automatically insert a statement and a 'Date review last re-formatted' in the What's new section when importing from 3.x format.
      Action: Monica
    2. An item related to inserting the 'Date review last re-formatted' should be included in the conversion checklist.
      Action: Jacob

  16. Testing on RevMan 4.0 beta

    1. The beta version received general praise.
    2. Jacob informed the group that beta testing was going well. The beta testers have provided a lot of useful feedback, mainly in the beginning of the period. Bug reports are now rare, indicating either that most have been found (hopefully) or that people are not testing as much as in the beginning.
    3. A final beta version (beta 4), containing the Metaview 4.0 beta will be released. The fact that there will also be changes to RevMan will make it worthwhile trying out both pieces of software.
    4. Two of the bugs in the beta cannot be fixed as they are inherent to the programming language. They are that Find and replace does not work in tables and that Undo and Redo on the Edit menu are always greyed out. These bugs should be noted in the RevMan FAQ.
      Action: Jacob

  17. Current status of MetaView 4.0 beta

    1. MetaView beta was still under development, but should be ready next week. The final version of MetaView should be delivered to the NCC by the 21 June.
    2. The beta test period was extended till 21 May, this information should be included in the next beta email newsletter.
      Action: Jacob
    3. c. There was concern that we could not ensure proper testing of the combined product in so short a time span. Mark said that Update Software would undertake thorough testing, but he could not guarantee that all possibilities were tested.
    4. d. It was suggested that one could test MetaView by running the new and old version along side each other with the same data. One could also use the export data file option to compare the results of the statistical analyses with those from other programs.
    5. e. It was agreed that we should try to recruit dedicated beta testers of MetaView. These could be sought among the current beta testers via the newsletter and from the Statistical Methods Group and the adminors list.
      Action: Jacob, Jon

  18. Funnel plots

    1. The funnel plots will not be published on The Cochrane Library. The reviewer will be able to use the funnel plots from MetaView, so the plots should carry a note saying 'Will not be published in CDSR'. This situation should be revisited when there is some idea about how much use will be made of funnel plots by reviewers.
      Action: Rasmus
    2. In this context, item 4.f.iii from the last minutes about the principle that users of The Cochrane Library should have access to the same graphs as reviewers was considered again. The Publishing Policy Group and the Steering Group should be informed about the non-availability of funnel plots in The Cochrane Library.
      Action: Monica

  19. Documentation for MetaView 4.0

    1. Update will include a help system that answers basic questions about using the program, eg "How to change confidence intervals", while all statistical issues will need to be dealt with in the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook.
    2. The RevMan User Guide will include a chapter on using MetaView, built on the MetaView help system. This chapter will be circulated to the RevMan Advisory Group when ready.
      Action: Jacob

  20. Tutorial for RevMan 4.0 (and MetaView 4.0)

    1. It is possible to record short animations demonstrating the program's use. A pilot episode, "Creating a review" will be produced. This will be circulated for feedback on whether more should be made.
      Action: Jacob, Rasmus
    2. A "Getting beyond the main screen" tutorial for MetaView was suggested.

  21. Plans for release of Rev Man 4.0

    1. The final beta version should be accompanied by a document listing the changes since the previous beta.
      Action: Rasmus.
    2. Rasmus informed the group that the final beta version would not be ready for release before the week beginning 10 May if the changes agreed at this meeting were to be implemented.
    3. The CD-ROMs containing the final software will take approximately two weeks to produce, so they should go to press at the end of June.
    4. It was discussed when the CRGs would need to be informed of any slip in the release schedule. Sonja said that she would need to know at least three weeks before the scheduled release date. It was agreed that the really crucial date for RGCs is not when the CDs will be shipped but when the software will be available for download over the internet.
    5. Monica informed the group that the NCC will provide a phone and email hotline for conversion problems, manned by three people from 19 July to 1 August, and manned by one person from 2 August to 27 October. RGCs should be adviced (via ADMINORS) to decide on a policy for whether or not to refer reviewers directly to the hotline.
      Action: Monica
    6. It was discussed how best to share valuable experiences gained during the conversion period. It was decided to implement a system consisting of an email list (possibly ADMINORS) and a web-site archive.
      Action: Jacob, Monica
    7. Monica informed the group that RGC training workshops on conversion were held in Oxford, New England, Lyon and Adelaide.
    8. Phil Alderson suggested a possible reviewer workshop in September, and Sonja proposed to have conversion workshops in July. It was agreed that such workshops would help in getting 'protected time' set aside for the conversion process. However, there was some concern about arranging such workshops when there might be a slip in the schedule.

  22. Update on the revision of the Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook

    23. Version 4.0 of the Reviewers' Handbook will be packaged as part of the help system for RevMan 4.0.

  23. Preparation of the next generation of the software for preparing Cochrane Reviews

    24. Monica presented a proposal for the next generation of the software. The proposal was endorsed by the group and will go to the SG.
    Action: Monica

  24. Any other business

    1. It was agreed that a check for empty review sections should be implemented. The option will be located on the File menu.
      Action: Rasmus
    2. It was requested that MetaView be able to print several graphs on one piece of paper. Update Software will investigate the possibility.
      Action: Mark

  25. Date of next meeting

    26. The next meeting should either be in the last week of November or the first week of December. Thursday 2 December was suggested as a provisional date.

RAG minutes | MinMan home

Document Actions