Minutes of the RevMan Advisory Group meeting held at the UK Cochrane Centre on 7 December 2000

Minutes approved on 28 March 2001

Present: Clive Adams, Gerd Antes, Chris Cates, Mike Clarke (Chair), Katherine Deane, Gordon Dooley (for item 7), Monica Fischer, Sonja Henderson, Julian Higgins, Heather Maxwell, Tess Moore, Rasmus Moustgaard, Jacob Riis, Lindsay Stead.

Apologies: Phil Alderson, Helen Smith, Mark Starr, Paul Whatling, Phil Wiffen, David Wilkinson, Sue Wilson.

In attendance: Claire Allen (minutes).

Contents:
Welcome
Approval of agenda
Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting
Patch for RevMan 4.1
Future bug fixes in RevMan 4.1
RevMan wishlist (see appendix 1)
MetaView bugs
Revision of the RevMan User Guide
Training materials for RevMan
Needs assessment survey
Graphs in Cochrane reviews
Any other business
Date of next meeting

Welcome , apologies and approval of agenda

Mike welcomed everyone to the meeting in particular Gerd, Katherine and Tess who were at their first RAG meeting. Apologies for absence had been received from the people listed above.

Approval of the agenda

The agenda was approved.

Approval of minutes and matters arising from the previous meeting

The minutes were approved with no amendments and Rasmus agreed to upload them to the web site.
Action: Rasmus

Matters arising

3.3 Publication of minutes
Jacob advised that the web site, where minutes are held of the meetings of the Software Development, RevMan Advisory and ModMan Advisory Groups, is now available for public access. He agreed to advise all entities of this.
Action: Jacob

3.7 Testing of software
Mike advised that Phil had identified a group of students who could possibly carry out future testing of software.

3.11a Guidance on good outcomes
Chris reported that the preparation of guidance on good outcomes was still pending as no consensus had yet been reached. Mike agreed to discuss this issue with the Handbook Group when appropriate.
Action: Mike

5 Content of a Cochrane review on The Cochrane Library
It was agreed that the specification of a Cochrane review should appear on a web site. Jacob agreed to add to the RevMan wishlist a facility to check automatically whether anything had been entered in the unpublished parts of a protocol for a Cochrane review.
Action: Jacob

9 Future plans for the Information Management System
Monica advised that the Nordic Cochrane Centre had recently identified additional funding sufficient to secure the future of the programming team there. Therefore, there is now less urgency in developing the plans for the future Information Management System as part of a funding application. The development of the System would depend upon the results of the needs assessment survey which Mike was carrying out on behalf of the Information Management System Group (formerly Software Development Group).

11 Progress on RevMan 4.1 beta-testing
Monica reported that only minor bugs had been found in RevMan 4.1 by the beta-testers. She also advised that the Nordic Cochrane Centre would probably use paid beta-testers, rather than volunteers, for future releases of RevMan.

12 Web-registering for RevMan 4.1 on CD-ROM
It was agreed that Monica should advise entities that the web page is still active and can be used by CRGs to order additional CD copies of RevMan 4.1, as well as by reviewers wishing to register directly with the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Jacob agreed to add a note to the web page stating that copies of RevMan 4.1 will be sent only at the end of each calendar month.
Action: Monica, Jacob

14 Transfer of contact details between RevMan, ModMan and HIREx
Sonja reported that contact details are not being transferred from RevMan to HIREx and that the Modman Advisory Group have recommended that these should not be kept in ModMan.

16 SPAM from RAG e-mail list
Jacob reported that the RAG e-mail list is now moderated and that SPAM mail has been eliminated.

17 Membership of RAG and creation of additional RAGs
Mike advised that the expansion of RAG to include more reviewers was still pending. Centres had been advised to consider establishing locally based RevMan Advisory Groups to inform the future development of RevMan, should these be requested by reviewers.

Patch for RevMan 4.1

1. Rasmus explained that three bugs in RevMan 4.1 had been identified and a patch had been made to rectify these bugs. This is now available on the web site for downloading. The bugs have been fixed in the Internet version of RevMan 4.1 and Rasmus agreed to send a message to the ADMINORS e-mail discussion list advising about the patch and the new Internet version.
   Action: Rasmus
2. Rasmus agreed to check how many RGCs were on the RevMan e-mail discussion list. Sonja agreed to ask Jini Hetherington to recommend that new RGCs join the RevMan e-mail discussion list in the induction material. Heather agreed to remind RGCs of the web site and advise that it is recommended that they join the RevMan e-mail discussion list.
   Action: Rasmus, Sonja, Heather

Future bug fixes in RevMan 4.1

Rasmus agreed to write to the RAG when a bug is reported, requesting advice on whether a patch should be made, detailing the bug itself and resource implications of fixing it. Rasmus also agreed to add a note to his e-mail signature when sending out details of RevMan (eg "If you have a bug, please look at the web site for a fix").
Action: Rasmus

RevMan wishlist (see appendix 1)

Jacob described the wishlist, which he agreed to upload to the web site. He advised that it did not include the items from the MetaView wishlist. Mike agreed to add the item 'Combined wishlist (RevMan and MetaView)' to the agenda for the next RAG meeting.
Action: Jacob, Mike

Everyone agreed to advise their relevant peers that the wishlist for both RevMan and MetaView would be discussed again in six months. Jacob agreed to update the wishlist submission form and advise people who had submitted wishes that their wishes had been discussed and that minutes of the meeting are available on the web site.
Action: Everyone

MetaView bugs

Gordon addressed this item and agreed to investigate whether column headings in additional tables (which are variable in length) are truncated or wrap round. All the bugs that had been reported so far are in connection with printing and, unfortunately, when Update Software had carried out testing, no problems occurred. Gordon reported that Update Software is not planning to fix any of the known bugs before the next issue of The Cochrane Library. He did advise however that the known bugs would be fixed in due course. If these fixes mean that the program had to be re-written, Update Software will do this and a new executable file would need to be distributed. Requests for changes for MetaView can still be submitted formally through RAG.
Action: Gordon

Revision of the RevMan User Guide

1. Guidance on survival data
   Mike agreed to write guidance for incorporating survival data in the User Guide. Rasmus and Jacob agreed to forward comments from Julian to Mike for consideration.
   Action: Mike, Rasmus, Jacob
2. Guidance on other published versions of the review
   A paper had been prepared by Philippa Middleton as a result of the Technical and structural editing workshop held at the Cape Town Colloquium. Mike agreed to forward the paper to the Handbook Group and suggest that they might consider adding guidance on other published versions of the review. He advised that a clear statement should be made suggesting which previously published reviews should be cited. Everyone agreed to send Mike suggestions for improved wording for this.
   Action: Mike, Everyone
3. Archiving of The Cochrane Library
   Concern was raised, in relation to citing previously published versions of reviews, that archives of The Cochrane Library were not available. Katherine advised that both the British Library and the US National Institute of Health are archiving electronic journals and Mike agreed to raise this issue with the Cochrane Library Users' Group.
   Action: Mike

Training materials for RevMan

It was agreed that it was feasible to produce training materials for RevMan and that pilot training materials would be sent out in January. These training materials will not be CRG specific but Phil Alderson had advised that this might be possible over time. It was agreed that it is very important to update these training materials when new versions of RevMan are issued and that informing the people responsible for updating the training materials should be part of the process of developing new software.

Needs assessment survey

Mike advised that the pilot survey for assessing software requirements is now almost ready for distribution. Approximately fifty people would receive the pilot and suggestions for these people would be welcomed (particularly people whose first language is not English). The returns from the pilot survey should be collected by mid-January and the final survey will be distributed in mid-March.
Action: Everyone

Graphs in Cochrane reviews

Mike and Jon Deeks had circulated a discussion paper after the last RAG meeting related to the inclusion of additional graphs in Cochrane reviews. They had sent RAG members a set of recommendations based on this consultation in advance of the present meeting. These recommendations, detailed below were endorsed:

• It should be made possible to include additional graphs in Cochrane reviews in The Cochrane Library.
• The Software Development Group should consider the feasibility of attaching or including additional graphs in Cochrane reviews prior to their publication.
• Update Software (as publisher of The Cochrane Library) should consider the feasibility of including additional graphs in Cochrane reviews at the time of publication.
• The Statistical Methods Group and the Publishing Policy Group should be asked to advise on the types of additional graphs that would be allowed in Cochrane reviews. (Members of this Methods Group are working on producing examples of the types of plots that could be included, what they should contain and common errors that should be avoided.)
• These recommendations should be passed to the Software Development Group requesting their endorsement and action.

Mike agreed to pass these recommendations to the Software Development Group at their next meeting (immediately after the RAG meeting).
Action: Mike

Any other business

There was no other business.

Date of next meeting

The proposed date for the next meeting is Wednesday 28 March. Mike agreed to confirm this date by e-mail.

RAG minutes | MinMan home