Minutes of meeting of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group,
São Paulo, Brasil,

18 and 19 February 2001

[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 3 April 2001]

Subject	Item
Advisory Group, CENTRAL/CCTR	7.2
Advisory Group, Cochrane Library Users’	7.3
Advisory Group, Colloquium Policy	7.4, 35
Advisory Group, Criticism Management	7.5
Advisory Group, Handbook	7.6
Advisory Group, Information Management System	7.7
Advisory Group, Quality	7.8
Advisory Groups, budgets for sub- and	7.9
Advisory Groups, conflict of interest in convenorship of	19
Articles of Association (Constitution) of the Collaboration	36
BMJ Publishing Group (Clinical Evidence), relationship with	13
Centers, US Cochrane	7.1.2
Centre responsible for Cochrane activities in Thailand	39.4
Centre, establishment of national networks in countries without a Cochrane	20
Clinical Evidence (BMJ Publishing Group), relationship with	13
Cochrane Library, complimentary copies of The	30
Cochrane products, pricing of specialty	11
Cochrane products, publishing of	9
Collaborative Review Groups, workload and calendar of events	29
Colloquium, Lyon – 2001	39.5
Colloquium, prizes	7.4
Company Secretary	37
Constitution (Articles of Association) of the Collaboration	36
Contact reviewers’ notification list	31
Document production and updating, standard operating procedures for	24
Entity changes, advising the Monitoring and Registration Group of	7.1.3
Finance, budgets for sub- and advisory groups	7.9
Finance, equitable distribution of funds	5
Finance, financial loss at Colloquia	7.4
Finance, travel by Chair	6.1
Finance, travel to CCSG meetings by members	6.2
Finance, Treasurer’s report	3
Funders’ Forum	12
Funders, raising the profile of the Cochrane Collaboration with	25
Hypertension Group	7.1.1
International organisations, alliances with	26
Media guidance, report on	21
Monitoring and Registration Group, changes in membership	7.1.4, 39.2
National networks, establishment of, in countries without a Cochrane Centre	20
Prize, Kenneth Warren and Thomas C Chalmers Award, management of the	35
Prizes, Colloquium	7.4
Report, Cochrane Collaboration	22
Reviewers’ (contact) notification list	31
Reviews, consumer synopses	34
Reviews, cost of producing individual	15
Reviews, dissemination of research	23
Reviews, electronic tracking of	2.2
Reviews, inclusion of a statement in The Cochrane Library for withdrawn	16
Reviews, publication of complete versions in paper journals	27
Secretariat, appraisal of Jini Hetherington	2.1
Secretariat, new senior staff position	14
Standard operating procedures for document production and updating	24
Steering Group priorities	4.1
Steering Group, agendas for meetings of	28.2
Steering Group, conflict of interest for members	18
Steering Group, electoral process	17
Steering Group, e-mail etiquette	39.1
Steering Group, meeting in February/March 2002 of the	28.1
Steering Group, member stepping down	39.6
Steering Group, monitoring of	8
Steering Group, spreadsheet of members’ outstanding action items	38
Thailand, Centre responsible for Cochrane activities in	39.4
Titles, web site for new	32.1, 32.2
Translation	4.2
Treasurer’s report	3
Update Software	9, 10
Web site for new titles	32.1, 32.2
Web sites, Collaboration mirror	33
World Association of Medical Editors	39.3

Minutes of meeting of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group,

São Paulo, Brasil,

18 and 19 February 2001

[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 3 April 2001]

Present: Gerd Antes, Hilda Bastian, Mike Clarke (Chair, from Item 7.2 to Item 28), Davina Ghersi, Jini Hetherington (minutes), Ruth Jepson, Peter Langhorne (Chair for items dealt with in Mike’s absence), Youping Li, Jim Neilson, Samuel Ochieng, Elena Telaro, Jimmy Volmink, David Wilkinson and Chris Williams.
Peter Tugwell in attendance for items 1 to 8.

1. Peter welcomed everyone to the meeting. Due to the delay in the arrival of Mike’s flight from the UK, Peter chaired the first part of the meeting. He thanked Peter Tugwell for coming to the meeting, to feed back the findings of the review panel that had monitored the Steering Group (see item 8).

2. Matters arising, not on this agenda

2.1 Jini’s appraisal: Peter reported that Mike had undertaken Jini’s annual performance appraisal, and that it had gone well.

2.2 Electronic tracking system for reviews: Jim reported that Tor-Arne Bertheussen had left the Oslo branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, and therefore development of this system had not yet progressed. Peter agreed to find out whether this is being taken forward through the Information Management System Group, or otherwise.
Action: Peter

3. Treasurer’s report
Peter reported on the satisfactory increase in royalties to the Collaboration over the past year. It was agreed that the contingency fund needs to be looked at with a view to increasing it, when the budget for the coming year is set, to cover the salary costs of the additional member of staff in the Secretariat. This budget, for the period April 2001 to March 2002, should be circulated to the Steering Group before the end of March when the current financial year ends.
Action: Peter, Mike, Jini

4. Steering Group priorities
4.1 It was agreed that this item had been incorrectly called ‘Funding priorities’ on the agenda. Chris asked if action items could be identified during the meeting that would entail reassessing the current list of priorities. He also asked for future agendas of Steering Group meetings to be organized around the revised list of priorities. The original list had been drafted two years ago, during the CCSG meeting in Freiburg in March 1998, and finalised at the CCSG meeting during the Rome Colloquium in October 1999. It was agreed to revisit the list of priorities at the next Steering Group meeting in Lyon, in light of the Collaboration’s strategic plan and the various issues entailing funding which are currently under discussion.
Action: Peter

4.2 It was agreed that Gerd should recommend to the Centre Directors that the basic introductory material about the Collaboration should be translated from English into several other major languages, and made available on the web site.
Action: Gerd

5. Equitable distribution of funds
Peter gave the background to the document prepared by himself and Mark Lodge before the previous Steering Group meeting, to provide some guiding principles for the allocation of money from this discretionary fund. The ceiling of 5,000 pounds sterling per year in this fund was altered to 10,000 pound, with a ceiling of 2,000 pounds to any one applicant. The Chair would bring requests for money from decisions as to allocation of this fund to the Executive for approval, and the existence of the fund should be publicised in the Cochrane Manual and disseminated via CCINFO. Patterns of application, and who had been given money, should be kept in a table and be a standing item on future CCSG agendas. Jini was asked to advise the CCSG on past retrospective spending from this fund via e-mail.
Action: Mike, Jini

6. CCSG expenses

6.1 Travel by Chair to other meetings: It was agreed that it was only necessary only to bring requests to fund exceptional travel by the Chair to the Executive for approval, and that standard travel by the Chair on Collaboration business would not need such approval. Peter would outline the expenses the Chair might expect to incur prepare a budget forduring his routine exceptional travel duties, expenses as Chair, for the Steering Group meeting in Lyon. It was suggested that this may be expressed as a small percentage of Collaboration income.
, linking it to the income of the Collaboration [JINI AND PETER: IT WAS UNCLEAR WHAT THIS LINKING REFERS TO. CAN THE SENTENCE NOT STOP AFTER LYON?] .
Action: Peter

6.2 Travel to CCSG meetings: Jini agreed to ask Claire Allen to explore obtaining a credit card for the Collaboration Secretariat, to make it more efficient to pay the costs of Steering Group members’ hotel and travel expenses for the mid-year meeting. Hilda agreed to draft a travel policy for future Steering Group meetings, with very specific criteria, based on her tabled paper. Chris, David and Jim volunteered to produce a paper on how to prioritise where the mid-year Steering Group meetings are held, the expectations of visiting one place versus another, the organization of the Steering Group meeting agendas, and the way to get the most out of the meetings.
Action: Jini, Hilda, Chris, David, Jim

7. Reports and budgets from sub- and advisory groups

7.1 Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG): The MRG were thanked for their hard work, particularly on the monitoring of entities, and Ruth was asked to pass on thanks to Claire Allen for the support she had provided to the MRG.
Action: Ruth

7.1.1 Hypertension Group: It was agreed that it would be advisable for potential applicants for new entities to advise the Monitoring and Registration Group at the earliest opportunity, to avoid several individuals applying to establish the same entity. The Steering Group approved the proposal that, at this time, the Monitoring and Registration Group only considers the application from James Wright to re-establish the Hypertension Group, which is currently being looked after by the Heart Groupbeing caretaken by the Heart Group.
Action: Ruth

7.1.2 US Cochrane Centers: Peter agreed to ask the Directors of the US Centers to provide clarification about their intentions for merging these centers. Jini was asked to arrange for removal of the San Antonio Cochrane Center from the Collaboration web site.
Action: Peter, Jini

7.1.3 Changes within entities: There was discussion about whether or not it should be mandatory to notify the Monitoring and Registration Group (MRG) of changes to existing entities (such as change of name, move of editorial base, etc.). The Director of the reference Cochrane Centre should always be asked if the Centre it knows about, and supports, a particular change. It was agreed that the MRG should be advised of all such intended changes; however, they should first discuss and propose to the Steering Group which types of changes should require MRG approval, and which types of changes should be notified to them for information only. When this has been agreed, Ruth should convey the information to all entities, assuring them that a response from the MRG would be given as soon as possible in situations where their approval has been sought.
Action: Ruth

7.1.4 Interim replacement for Jimmy Volmink on the MRG: It was agreed that the MRG should try to co-opt someone to the Group to represent Centres until October 2001 when a new Centre representative will be elected to the Steering Group and replace Jimmy on the MRG.
Action: Ruth

7.2 CENTRAL/CCTR Advisory Group (CCAG): Davina Elena clarified that there had been some general confusion in the past between the CENTRAL Management Plan had been confused in the past with and the guidelines for submitting specialised registers for inclusion in CENTRAL. [JINI AND PETER: THIS MIGHT NEED TO BE CHANGED TO MAKE IT CLEARER WHO HAS BEEN CONFUSED ABOUT THIS]. It was agreed that Mike should write to the Trials Search Co-ordinators, strongly encouraging them to follow the existing guidelines for submitting their specialized registers, and asking them to make it known if they had problems or difficulties in adhering to those guidelines. A separate issue causing concern is that CENTRAL contains many inappropriate entries and duplicates. It was agreed that there is a need to Mike and Peter would try to clarify the nature of the problems with CENTRAL, in order to develop a plan for their resolution.so that there could be a rapid resolution of these. Mike and Davina agreed to work together on this and to contact Kay Dickersin to discuss how this could be done. They would also ask Kay if the finalisation of the CENTRAL Management Plan could be acceleratedask for an acceleration of the timescale for cleaning up CENTRAL, as it was felt desirable to complete this such activities sooner than the planned six months mentioned in her report. Davina would also repeat her offer to Kay to help TSCs who had had problems in making their submissions for CENTRAL.
Action: Mike, Peter, Davina

7.3 Cochrane Library Users’ Group (CLUG): It was agreed that the Publishing Policy Group should discuss providing some free subscriptions to The Cochrane Library to ensure broader membership of the CLUG.
Action: Mike

7.4 Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG): It was suggested that the CPAG be asked to recommend the setting up of additional awards, rather than trying to change the criteria of any existing award. They should also be asked to consider who is liable if a Colloquium suffers a financial loss.
Action: Davina

7.5 Criticism Management Advisory Group (CMAG): Mike advised that the new web site system for submitting comments and criticisms is now working well. Strategies need to be developed , and the process needs to be worked out for encouraging people to use it. He agreed to ask the San Francisco Cochrane Center to name someone to represent them on the CMAG Group.
Action: Mike

7.6 Handbook Advisory Group (HAG): It was clarified that the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook is a living document, and people are should be encouraged to make suggestions for improvements and amendments to the editors, Mike Clarke and Andy Oxman.
Action: Mike

7.7 Information Management System Group (IMSG): Mike described the survey that is soon to be distributed to all entities to assess identify and prioritise the software needs within of the Collaborationorganisation. It was agreed that all software developed for use across within the Collaboration should be the responsibility of the IMS Group. It was also agreed that the IMS Group should be encouraged to expand its membership internationally.
Action: Mike

7.8 Quality Advisory Group (QAG): It was clarified that no decision had been taken to have a checklist for peer reviewers. There is a It was noted that there should be a third option for the copy editing of Cochrane reviews, which is that this should become the responsibility of the Collaboration’s publishers of the Collaboration’s products. The: the Quality Advisory Group Steering Group should advise the Steering Group on the feasibility of the three options.
Action: Mike, Peter

7.9 Budgets for advisory groups: All the budgets submitted by the advisory groups for the year April 2001 to March 2002 were approved, and it was agreed that these budgeted figures should be included in the Collaboration’s annual report. Each advisory group should be asked to provide a five-year plan with their report for the Steering Group meeting in Lyon. . It was agreed that the IMS Group should be encouraged to expand its membership internationally. The Secretariat should organise advisory group telephone conferences where possible in future, so that the invoices for these can be paid centrally. The sums approved in the various budgets should be paid by the Secretariat in arrears, on the basis of invoices submitted by the advisory group convenors. Peter undertook to advise the sub- and advisory group convenors that their budgets had been approved as submitted, to thank them for their reports, and to ask them to pass on thanks to all their members for their hard work.
Action: Peter

8. Monitoring the Steering Group
Peter Tugwell presented the findings of the review panel that had undertaken to monitor the Steering Group. Peter [Langhorne] and Mike undertook to study the recommen-dations of the review panel and work out what is already being done about them, flagging up ways in which some of the others could be dealt with. They would raise this for discussion with the Executive in their next telephone conference in early April, and put the matter on the agenda of the Steering Group meeting in Lyon. Mike undertook to write formally to Peter Tugwell and the review panel to thank them warmly for their hard work and efficiency in conducting the review of the Steering Group.
Action: Peter, Mike

9. Request for proposals for publishing Cochrane products
Mike reported on progress to date by the working group committee (comprising Chris, Hilda, Peter and himself) in finding a consultant (at a cost of between 5,000 and 10,000 pounds sterling) to help develop a canvas for Rrequests for Pproposals from publishers, to advertise this, and to help with the selection process. The search for a suitable person was continuing. The working group estimated that hiring a consultant would cost between 5,000 and 10,000 pounds sterling. David offered to send Mike a couple of contact names of people who might be suitable, and suggestions would also be sought from other people. It is estimated that it will should take about six weeks after finding a suitable consultant before advertising the Request for Proposals.putting the bid out to tender. In the meantime, he Mike clarified that in the meantime the existing contract with Update Software is not affected by this initiative.
Action: David

10. Letter from Mark Starr, Update Software
It was agreed that in future the publisher of the Cochrane Collaboration products should be provided with a structured template for their report to the CCSG. Mike and Peter would draft thisa structured template for reporting by its publishers, and bring it to the CCSG for approval, via the Executive.
Action: Mike, Peter

11. Pricing of specialty products
Mike clarified that the category into which a particular specialty product falls in the banding structure would be agreed jointly by the publisher, the Collaboration, and the producers of the specialty product. The proposed banding structure that had already been agreed by the Publishing Policy Group was accepted in principle. Clarification would be was sought as to what were “allowable expenses”.
Action: Mike, Peter

12. Funders’ Forum
Peter reported that since the meeting with funders in Cape Town in October 2000, arrangements had been made to hold a telephone conference in the near future, with a view to holding a small planning meeting in June, to draft funding options for a second, larger meeting of funders during the Lyon Colloquium. Mike agreed to advise Ron Stamp that potential funders should be strongly encouraged to attend the Lyon meeting.
Action: Mike

13. Relationship between Clinical Evidence and the Collaboration
The Steering Group reviewed the ten proposals contained in the tabled paper from the BMJ Publishing Group (BMJPG). It was agreed that all these proposals should be viewed from an international perspective. For example, if the BMJPG made special arrangements with three3 CRGs, it would be good if This could be ensured by requiring that one of theseCRGs represented should be was from outside the UK and, perhaps, one should preferably be from a non-English language-speaking editorial base. It was agreed that representatives from such CRGs should be part of future , in any negotiations with the BMJPG: Bernd Richter and George Rutherford should be approached to see if they would be willing to join the negotiating group (which already includes Mike, Peter and Jim). Hilda volunteered to be involved in any negotiations involving issues relatingalting to consumers.
Action: Mike, Peter

14. New senior staff position
There was lengthy discussion on the required skills and remit of the proposed senior staff position. It was agreed that this person would be employed initially for one year to look at the review process and then draw up a plan for supporting CRGs, with the aim of improving the quality of reviews: s/he would be required to identify and report back on the problems with Cochrane reviews, with the aim of identifying best practice. This process would primarily involve the staff at the editorial bases of CRGs and reviewers. The current job description should be revised, removing everything not to do with the production process of reviews. It would be desirable for the appointed this person to have a good grasp of quality and improvement methodology, some experience of health care systems, a good knowledge of the Collaboration, and an appreciation of its ethos. S/he should be prepared to travel, to possess good listening and communication skills, and the ability to remain focussed on the wider picture. S/he would report to the CCSG through the Chair, and preferably be based for the majority of the year in or close to Oxford, although candidates who wished to be based elsewhere were not prepared to relocate would not be ruled out. The selection panel should consist of Chris, Davina, Gerd, Jim, Jini, Mike, and Peter. This position should be advertised both within and outside the Collaboration, and David, [JINI AND PETER: DOESN’T LISTING JINI REPLACE THE NEED FOR THE FOLLOWING TEXT?]and someone locally who understands clearly what is required of this person.  agreed to provide Mike with the name of an employment consultant; it was also recommended that Mike he seek advice on where to advertise the position from Heather Buchan in Melbourne. The post should be advertised in April, with interviews taking place in the third week of June, with the aim of appointing someone to the position in time to attend the Lyon Colloquium. Travel expenses would be paid to shortlisted candidates who are interviewed. Mike will revise and circulate the job description to all Steering Group members, Philippa Middleton and Pim Assendelft as soon as possible, so that it can be finalized by the end of March.
Action: David, Mike

15. Costs of producing individual reviews
It was agreed that it is important to have a reliable estimate of know the costs of producing individual Cochrane reviews, on an hourly basis. A committee was formed, consisting of Chris, Davina, Jimmy and Ruth, to work with the Health Economics Methods Group to develop a proposal for ascertaining such costs, for discussion at the Steering Group meeting in during the Lyon Colloquium. The committee members y should decide work out among themselves which of them will take the lead on this.
Action: Chris, Davina, Jimmy, Ruth

16. Inclusion of a statement in The Cochrane Library for withdrawn Cochrane reviews
The recommendations in Philippa Middleton’s paper of 29 January 2001 were accepted, and Mike agreed to convey this to her. It was agreed that withdrawn reviews should not be counted when the total number of Cochrane reviews is shown in The Cochrane Library.exact number of reviews should be included in the proposed statement, rather than a rough figure. Otherwise, the wording of the statement was agreed to, and Mike agreed to convey this to Philippa Middleton.
Action: Mike

17. Review of electoral process
The paper prepared by Davina, with assistance from Mark Lodge and Jini, was discussed, and the following agreements were reached:

Section 2: All entities should continue to provide a list of their voting members to the Secretariat, to comply with the legal requirements of conducting elections to the Steering Group. All active members are eligible to vote for the person to represent their entity, and a description of who constitutes an ‘active’ member should be included in entity modules.


Section 10: Jini was asked to discover the legal implications, if any, of someone from outside the Steering Group becoming Chair of the Collaboration in the absence of a suitable candidate from within the Steering Groupexisting member. Her Any findings and the implications for the source of the Chair should be discussed by the Steering Group at its meeting in Lyon.
Action: Jini

Section 11: A template should be devised setting out the expectations of Steering Group members, such as how to communicate with their constituencies. Additional information should be provided to incoming members in the form of a job description provided by the relevant outgoing members. It was agreed that two consecutive terms as a member of the Steering Group should be the limit, with a three-year break before someone could stand again for election. The exception to this is the Chair, who continues to have to step down after one two-year term (but this term can extend beyond what would have been the end of two terms as an entity representative).

Section 13 (g): If someone is a reviewer in more than one CRG s/he should only exercise one vote in elections for a CRG representative, but they could also vote in elections for other entity representatives. they can vote more than once

Section 13 (i): It was agreed unanimously that reviewers do not need the approval of their Co-ordinating Editor before standing for election.

No! [JINI AND PETER: THIS NEEDS TO BE CLEARER]

Section 13 (a), (b), (c) and (h), and Section 14: Jini was asked to obtain feedback from all entities on these items.
Action: Jini

Additional decision: There is no elected position for Deputy Chair.

Davina undertook to follow through on these decisions by advising the entity electoral officers for entities.
Action: Davina

18. Developing conflict of interest policy for CCSG members
Hilda had agreed at the Steering Group meeting in Cape Town to produce a paper outlining a conflict of interest policy for Steering Group members: she said she was now in a position to do this, and would circulate it to all members by e-mail by the end of April.
Action: Hilda

19. Conflicts of interest in convenorship of advisory groups
Hilda was asked to take account of conflicts of interest in convenorship of advisory groups in the paper she would be preparing for circulation to the Steering Group by the end of April (see item 18 above). Mike agreed to pass on thanks to the staff of the UKCC for their suggestions in this regard.
Action: Hilda, Mike

20. Establishment of national networks in countries without a Cochrane Centre
No objections were raised to Mike’s suggestions with regard to the desirability of establishing national networks in countries without a Cochrane Centre.

21. Report on media guidance
Steering Group members were asked to give Mike feedback by the end of March on his document giving guidance on dealing with the media. He will not release it more widely until he has been able to He would then modify it as necessary. He will then and circulate it to all entities to pass on to reviewers and others as appropriate. The question of who within the Collaboration should be able to speak to the media on behalf of the organization should be discussed by the Steering Group at its meeting in Lyon.
Action: Everyone, Mike

22. Cochrane Collaboration Report
This document is being prepared for an external audience and should therefore be reader-friendly and look professional. There was discussion about the purpose of the planned report. It was concluded that it is not an “aAnnual rReport” as such, as that would contain very detailed budget and expenditure information that may not be of wide interest to an external audience; such information is already tabled at the charity’s Annual General Meetings. It would be more appropriate to call the document something like ‘The Cochrane Collaboration 2000’. Examples should be included about activities that have had a high impact on health care. There should be a statement about existing funders, directing the reader to the source for the specifics. Jini should ask the entities what reviews they have done which show a very strong outcome, or which have resulted in a new randomised trial being undertaken, or something they have produced which has brought about a change. High impact activities and products, things such as Alvaro Atallah’s weekly television programme in Brazil on evidence-based medicine, and the Reproductive Health Library, should also be mentioned.
Action: Jini

23. Dissemination of research on Cochrane reviews
Peter Gøtzsche and Phil Alderson, two of the contributors to a paper under review by the BMJ regarding the quality of Cochrane reviews, had been invited to join the Steering Group meeting for the discussion of this item. The Steering Group felt that the current version of their paper, as written, reads rather negatively, and does not recognise the changes that have occurred within the last three years to improve the quality of Cochrane the reviews. The opportunity was welcomed from the contributors to modify the paper to include more comment about these developments a critique within their paper. Concerns were raised about the potential damage to enthusiasm within the Collaboration if the paper was published in its current form, and ideas were raised as to how to minimise that damage by revising the paper, particularly the abstract. All members of the Steering Group supported the principle that the authors of the paper were of freedom to express their views in public and the Steering Group did not wish to censure thatbut hoped that . The they were asked would amend their paper to to put the paper into a broader context to summarise the Collaboration’s efforts programme to improve the quality of Cochrane reviews.
Action: Peter Gøtzsche, Phil Alderson

24. Standard operating procedures for document production and updating
Hilda agreed to work with Mike on developing some standard operating procedures for document the production and updating of Collaboration wide documents. , inviting the participation of Georg Koch of the German Cochrane Centre would be invited to join Hilda and Mike in doing this.
Action: Hilda, Mike

25. Raising the profile of the Cochrane Collaboration and systematic reviews with research funders
Davina, Elena and Peter agreed to work on developing an appropriate strategy, possibly involving Peter Tugwell if he is interested and available.
Action: Davina, Elena, Peter

26. Alliances with international organisations
Hilda, Jimmy, Samuel and Youping agreed to work together on developing a strategy for working closely with other relevant international organisations. It was agreed to ask Peter Tugwell to suggest someone from North America to join this group.
Action: Hilda, Jimmy, Samuel, Youping

27. Publication of versions of Cochrane reviews in journals
In view of the Lancet’s offer to publish versions of Cochrane reviews after these have appeared in The Cochrane Libraryin their entirety, Jini was asked to check with Monica Fischer, who had because of her previously worked on the agreement between the Collaboration and its publisher, whether permission needs to be obtained from Update Software to publish complete Cochrane reviews in paper journals.
Action: Jini

28. Steering Group Meeting, February/March 2002

28.1 Meeting in China: Youping reiterated her invitation to host the mid-year meeting of the Steering Group in Chengdu in 2002, after the Chinese New Year on 12^th to 14^th February. She said she would welcome the opportunity to arrange for Steering Group members to participate in teaching sessions for Chinese people after the Steering Group their own meeting. She was thanked for her offer to host this meeting, and was asked to try to arrange the Chinese EBM Symposium at around the same time. It was agreed that if the Centre Directors also decided to meet in Chengdu at the time of the Steering Group meeting, they should be asked to schedule their meeting before that of the Steering Group. Kay Dickersin had advised Davina that unless the mid-year Centre Directors‘ meetings are held towards the end of March, US Center Directors find it difficult to attend because of teaching commitments. Therefore, if the Centre Directors decide also to have a mid-year meeting in Chengdu, Jini was asked to canvas the US Center Directors as to their availability before the date for this meeting is set.
Action: Youping, Jini

28.2 Sharing of agendas: In future, Steering Group meeting agendas should be circulated to all entities in advance of meetings, for their information. Also, the Steering Group agreed that they would like to see agendas for Centre Directors’ meetings in