Minutes of the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting,
Vellore, India,

11-13 April 2008

[These minutes were approved on 10 June 2008.]

Subject	Item no.
Advisory Group budget requests for 2008-09	29.3
Cash flow forecast	29.1.2
CENTRAL Request For Proposals (RFP)	8
Chief Executive Officer’s report	4
Co-Chair nomination	23
Co-Chairs, election and working arrangements of Steering Group	24
Cochrane Library, publication of The (Wiley-Blackwell report)	12.1
Cochrane Opportunities Fund	31
Collaboration review in 2008, remit of the	18
Colloquia, the next two	28
Colloquium 2010 in Keystone	19
Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) second progress report	10.4
Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) request for extension of funding	10.5
Co-ordinating Editors’ board, proposal to establish a	5; 29.1.2.1
Copy Edit Support	12.3
Declarations of interest	2
Discretionary Fund expenditure	33
DTA editorial board, proposal for the formation of a	10.2
DTA register of reports: third progress report	11
DTA register proposal for continued funding from 2009 to 2011	10.3
DTA reviews: overview on status	10
DTA reviews: support for Cochrane Review Groups in North America	10.6
Duodecim proposal for an EBM decision support system	14
Editor-in-Chief, Proposal to establish the position of	5; 29.1.2.1
Editorial Management Advisory Group, Responsibility and accountability	25
Entity representatives, reports from	26
Environmental sustainability	39
Feedback Management Advisory Group	34.1
Fields/Networks, registering discipline-based or profession-based	21
Financial position and cash flow forecast	29
Five-year review of the Steering Group, responses to the	16
Funding, Cochrane Collaboration: principles and mechanisms of core	30
Funds, Allocation to specific proposals	36
Handbook, implementing the updated: skill building and resource development	6
Impact factor [of Cochrane reviews]	12.2
Information Management System: status, workflow report and budget request	7
Key performance data	17
Keystone: revisiting the decision to hold the 2010 Colloquium in	19
Nursing Care Network, application for registration of a Cochrane	22
Opportunities Fund	31
Plain language summaries (in DTA reviews)	10.1
Project Support and Business Communications Officer	4
Publication of The Cochrane Library (Wiley-Blackwell report)	12
Rapid response prioritization team	9
Review of the Collaboration in 2008, remit of the	18
Review of the Steering Group in 2006, responses to the	16
RevMan 5 rollout	7.1
Secretariat budget for 2008-2009	29.2
Spreadsheet of outstanding action items	35
Steering Group Co-Chairs, election and working arrangements	24
Steering Group review in 2006, responses to the	16
Steering Group meetings, the next three	27
Steering Group members’ declarations of interest	2
Strategic discussion, decisions arising from the half-day	13
Strategic priorities, reviewing	15
Sub- and Advisory Group budget requests for 2008-09	29.3
Succession planning	34.2
Trading Company Directors	32
Training, skill building and resource development for; implementing updated Handbook	6
Treasurer’s report	29
WHO, Proposal to establish the Collaboration as an NGO in official relations with	20
Wiley report	12.1

Minutes of the

Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group meeting

Vellore, India, 11-13 April 2008

[These minutes were approved on 10 June 2008.]

Present: Lorne Becker (Co-Chair), Lisa Bero, Jonathan Craig, Jon Deeks, Zbys Fedorowicz, Ruth Foxlee, Paul Garner (for item 5 only), Donna Gillies (Treasurer), Adrian Grant (Co-Chair), Sally Green, Jeremy Grimshaw (for item 18 only), Jini Hetherington (Company Secretary, minutes), Monica Kjeldstrøm (IMS Director and Trading Company Director), Joy Oliver, Andy Oxman (for item 5 only), Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert (John Wiley & Sons, for items 12, 13 and 14 only), Nick Royle (CEO), Rob Scholten, Peter Tugwell, Janet Wale, Liz Whamond, Katrina Williams, Narelle Willis and Hans van der Wouden.

1 Welcomes, apologies for absence, introductions, and approval of agenda

Lorne welcomed everyone to the meeting; there had been no apologies. The agenda was approved.

2 Steering Group members’ declarations of interest

Monica pointed out that there were internal conflicts of interest among participants at this meeting about certain agenda items. It was suggested that the discussion of each item should commence by people declaring their interests, both non-financial and financial, and that these declarations should be recorded in the minutes under the individual items. This was not done consistently throughout the meeting, however.

3 Introduction from the Co-Chairs

Adrian referred to the important and significant issues on the agenda of this meeting. Lorne drew attention to the continuing need to link agenda items to the Strategic Plan. He outlined the order in which the agenda would be dealt with.

4 Chief Executive Officer’s report
Nick said that a major focus during the past six months had been the terms of the extension of the contract with Wiley-Blackwell for the next five years. This contract had now been signed. He pointed out the slow-down in subscription growth but the larger share in revenue from royalties. He reminded the Steering Group that Wiley-Blackwell is the exclusive publisher of Cochrane reviews, and has first option on derivative products. Nick advised that interviews had recently taken place to fill the position of Project Support and Business Communications Officer in the Secretariat, in furtherance of the recommendations of the recent Steering Group review; the successful candidate would take up the post on 1 July 2008.

5 Proposal to establish the position of Editor-in-Chief and a Co-ordinating Editors’ board for The Cochrane Collaboration

Paul Garner and Andy Oxman participated in the meeting for this item. Andy reminded everyone that the proposal to establish a Co-ordinating Editors’ board within the Collaboration dated back to 2004 when the Co-ordinating Editors had met and formed an executive, having as its major focus the quality and up-to-datedness of Cochrane reviews. Andy also reminded everyone that a joint meeting had been held between the Steering Group and the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive in Amsterdam in April 2007, and that the Co-ordinating Editors had discussed the functions, structure and governance of the proposed board in São Paulo in October 2007. A consultation document had then been circulated, and 45 of the then 51 Review Groups had been represented at a meeting in London, England, in January 2008 where the proposal to establish a board with an editor-in-chief was endorsed. Andy then made a PowerPoint presentation to the Steering Group of the key recommendations from the recent meeting of the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive (see Appendix to these minutes). His presentation also addressed some of the concerns that had been expressed surrounding this proposal. An incremental approach would need to be taken, with the position of Editor-in-Chief and the responsibilities of the board evolving over time. It was suggested that the appointment of the Editor-in-Chief would initially be for a three-year term. The risks of not approving this proposal were also addressed. The importance was stressed of establishing both a board of the co-ordinating editors (as the mechanism for improving working practices amongst Co-ordinating Editors) as well as an Editor-in-Chief. Paul addressed the credibility issue, and how to improve the quality of reviews continually and meet minimum standards across Review Groups. He said it was a major milestone that the Co-ordinating Editors were now working together as a group, and had agreed with the need to have someone in charge who would work closely with the Steering Group. Andy was thanked for his presentation and asked to make it available as an Appendix to these minutes.

Jon and Sally had circulated a document to the Steering Group and the Co-ordinating Editors’ executive before the meeting that outlined the concerns of Methods Groups and the Handbook Advisory Group with the tabled paper. They had discussed the issues raised with the Co-ordinating Editors at an earlier meeting, and brought forward a proposal to include in the new editorial structure a group in which representatives of Methods Groups and the Handbook Advisory Group could meet regularly with representatives of Review Groups, to discuss and work together on matters to improve review quality. Jon and Jonathan proposed bringing a paper to the Steering Group Executive to formalise this working team with a request for funds to meet. Sally thanked the Co-ordinating Editors for the massive amount of work that had gone into this proposal.
Action: Jon, Jonathan

The recommendations in the proposal were then considered.

Recommendation 2, the establishment of the post of and an office staff for the Editor-in-Chief was unanimously accepted. The Editor-in-Chief would report to the CCSG. This would be a senior appointment, to whom Co-ordinating Editors through their Board (see below) would be accountable, with the post having wider strategic responsibilities for editorial aspects of The Cochrane Library and related products. It was agreed that funding for the Editor-in-Chief and the office of the Editor-in-Chief (Recommendation 3) was a very high priority. A process was outlined by which the position should be filled (Recommendation 4), a clear view of where that person would stand, formation of the selection panel, and the remit of the position. Nick would take this forward with the help of Peter and others. The Steering Group would determine the membership of the selection panel. It was proposed that there should be a maximum of eight people on the selection panel, with representation from key stakeholders (one or both Co-Chairs, entity representatives, two Co-ordinating Editors, and an external experienced editor). It might also be useful to include a member of the CEO’s appointment panel. It was agreed that equity on the selection panel was important, as well as Methods Group representation. The Steering Group approved the engagement of a recruitment consultant to facilitate recruitment to this position. Nick was asked to investigate a firm undertaking this on a pro bono basis as the Collaboration is a charity; he would consult with our publishers but they should not be involved in funding this position. Nick would bring a report on progress to the next Executive meeting.
Action: Nick

Recommendation 1, the establishment of a Board of Co-ordinating Editors was also agreed unanimously, as was the timeline for this, proposed on page 11 of the background document. However, the name originally proposed ‘editorial board’ should be revised: ‘Co-ordinating Editors’ board’ was considered to be a more appropriate title. The Steering Group agreed that it was comfortable with the proposed structure of the board, its remit and its representation in the Steering Group through its two elected members (recommendations 5, 6 and 7), subject to the revisions Andy had made in his presentation. However, it was agreed (see above) that the Editor-in-Chief would be a senior appointment providing explicit leadership to the Board. Nick was asked to take the establishment of the Board forward with Peter and Jonathan, the two Co-ordinating Editors on the Steering Group, in consultation with the project group (Paul Garner, Sophie Hill and Andy Oxman), and to modify the table in the background paper to reflect three separate areas of responsibility: those of the Steering Group, those of the Co-ordinating Editors, and those of the project group. The table should be headed ‘Plan for implementation of the Co-ordinating Editors’ board’.

Action: Jonathan, Nick, Peter

It was acknowledged that these developments would have significant consequences for some other parts of the Collaboration, such as the Steering Group’s various advisory groups; this would need to be monitored carefully and constructively. Adrian thanked Paul Garner, Sophie Hill and Andy Oxman for all their hard work in developing this proposal, as well as Jonathan and Peter. It was agreed that this was a major initiative for the Collaboration, and in the highest category of initiatives that should receive core funding.

6 Implementing the updated Cochrane Handbook: Skill building and resource development for training
Nick explained that Sally had been asked to work with others to develop a long-term training strategy for the Collaboration, meeting the challenges of training in the new and updated methods in Version 5 of The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Sally and Julian Higgins therefore proposed convening a three-day meeting of trainers within the Collaboration, in Cambridge, UK, with participation from Cochrane authors, members of Review Groups, Centres and Methods Groups (those involved in producing the three new chapters in the Handbook, the Co-ordinating Editors’ board, and the Handbook Advisory Group). Aims of the meeting would include training of trainers, identification of the required training resources, and planning for the implementation of training across the Collaboration. Peter explained that Co-ordinating Editors strongly welcomed this initiative. Monica requested that members of the IMS Support Team be invited to attend this meeting, and this was approved. Nick had estimated the cost of a three-day meeting of 25 people at about 16.5K GBP, and this budget was approved. Jon explained that the provision of separate training in diagnostic test accuracy reviews would be discussed at this meeting. The newly appointed Project Support and Business Communications Officer in the Secretariat would be closely involved in supporting this initiative. It should be reinforced at the meeting that training is a core function of Centres. Peter stressed the need for more training to be available within the Collaboration, outside of that delivered by Centres; Sally was asked to investigate broadening the cascade approach, to develop a strategy for sophisticated methodological training for the Collaboration. Nick strongly suggested that the current approach of moving trainers and students geographically to deliver and attend training events was environmentally unsustainable, wasteful of resources, and limited the opportunities for training to certain times and places. He suggested that the Collaboration’s initiatives to develop and expand web-based training should be emphasised at the Cambridge meeting, and that this should be a core part of any training programme(s). He and Sally agreed to collaborate on a discussion paper on e-learning for the training meeting, which was approved.
Action: Nick, Sally

7 Information Management System (IMS):

7.1 IMS status report: Monica reported that the RevMan 5 software was now being rolled out and it was going well. She drew attention to some staff changes within the IMS development team. She and her team were congratulated for doing an extraordinary job in rolling out this software: it had been said that this improved software was a quantum leap for the Collaboration. As described in the IMS report, the IMS development team is involved in working on a web-based data extraction tool (enabled by a grant to the University of Berne), which would help review authors to manage the process of literature screening, reaching consensus on eligibility of trials and data extraction from included trials. Once completed, the software would be offered freely to The Cochrane Collaboration. Nick said that the Collaboration would need to enter into a licensing agreement with the licence holders of this software, in the same way as had been done for the IMS, RevMan and GradePro software packages. Monica agreed to raise this with the project members.
Action: Monica, Nick

7.2 IMS workflow and tracking component: Monica apologised for circulating this background document, and one on the reports available in Archie, by e-mail after the agenda material had been distributed to the Steering Group. The Steering Group confirmed the decision it had made during its meeting in October 2007 that the workflow and tracking system should be adopted by all Review Groups once it was working smoothly.

7.3 IMS budget April 2008 to March 2012: Following the Steering Group meeting in October 2007, at which Monica had highlighted the need for an expansion of the IMS team resources, she introduced the proposed new IMS budget from April 2008 to March 2012. Monica acknowledged the invaluable contribution of many volunteers across the Collaboration, and the substantial financial contributions of both the Nordic Cochrane Centre and The Cochrane Collaboration that had already gone into the development of the new IMS – a process that had started in 2002 following the results of the Collaboration-wide software needs assessment survey. The proposed new budget included an increase from the current 5.3 FTE to 8 FTE for the IMS Development team and an increase from 1.4 FTE to 1.8 FTE for the IMS Support team. The expanded IMS Development team would be responsible for operation, core development (including completion of the workflow system in 2008) and maintenance. The increase should be seen in light of the increasing user base and IMS’ crucial role in supporting the preparation and publishing of Cochrane reviews. Monica stressed the importance of having a critical mass to ensure that the system is based on a solid foundation that operates reliably, and the IMS team is resourced to respond to important requests for changes and to provide technical troubleshooting to the growing number of RevMan 5 users in particular. Peter Gøtzsche had advised that the Nordic Cochrane Centre (NCC) would continue to contribute the salary for 2.5 FTE for the IMS Development team until the end of March 2009; after this (from April 2009), due to a cut in its core budget, the NCC would continue to contribute 1.5 FTE to the development as well as cover the infrastructure cost for the full IMS Development team. In concluding her presentation and acknowledging the size of the proposed new budget, Monica said that the IMS team would welcome an independent timely evaluation of the IMS to help the Steering Group to assess the value of the IMS before making any firm decisions.

In discussion after Monica left the room, some members of the Steering Group felt that they did not possess sufficient technical knowledge to assess whether the budget request was reasonable. The IMS development team should be strongly congratulated and thanked for RevMan 5, and told that the Steering Group was keen to support them; however, it had some uncertainties about the level of funding being requested. After lengthy consideration of the proposal, maintenance of funding at the current level was agreed to for one additional year, until the end of March 2010, with an increase of The Cochrane Collaboration’s contribution from April 2009 to March 2010 to cover the cut in the budget of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, raising the Collaboration’s contribution from 112,585 to 176,019 GBP (including allowance for currency fluctuations). It was also agreed to increase the budget for the IMS Support team from 1.4 to 1.8 FTE, raising the Collaboration’s contribution from 57,500 to 65,000 GBP. The total amount of additional funding approved was 70,934 GBP. It was agreed that Lorne and Nick would engage an independent consultant with experience in the editorial and publishing software field to examine our current approach to software development, bearing in mind developments in comparable products since the original IMS funding decision had been made in 2003, to ensure that we were taking a technologically appropriate and cost-effective approach, within the context of where the rest of the publishing industry was in regard to software systems. The consultant should be expected to make recommendations on the type of system we might use for editorial management software (comparable with the IMS, which includes contact management, content/document management, workflow and tracking and RevMan) and on the level of resources we should be committing, presenting different options for the future.

Action: Lorne, Nick

8 CENTRAL - Request for Proposals (RFP)
Monica declared a conflict of interest in this proposal. Ruth explained that there was a great deal of enthusiasm among Trials Search Co-ordinators for the proposed way forward. The Steering Group agreed to put out the RFP in a general tender exercise open to all bidders, prioritising the essentials and desirables within the user requirement section before doing so. The sentence, “We ‘may’ have technical expertise on the review team” should read “will”. It was agreed that the IMS team would need to be involved in discussions with any provider to ensure that compatibility issues were addressed.
Action: Monica, Nick, Ruth

9 Rapid response prioritization team
Lorne asked for consideration of this item to be deferred until the Collaboration had a Co-ordinating Editors’ board, who should be asked to take forward the suggestion of having a rapid response team to prepare high priority reviews very quickly. This matter should be revisited at the next Steering Group meeting in Freiburg in October 2008, when Nick would be providing a status report on the projects that had been funded by the Prioritisation Fund. This suggestion could be considered by the small working group which had recently been set up to discuss the impact factor of Cochrane reviews.
Action: Nick

10 Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews - overview on status, and papers on the DTA initiative:

Jon explained the background to the work plan for DTA reviews. He said that these types of reviews required different skills and statistical expertise. This initiative was drawing new people into the Collaboration. It was agreed that our existing product, CDSR, needed added value, which DTA reviews would bring.

10.1 Plain language summaries (PLS): It was agreed that, for now, DTA reviews should have no PLS initially because no format, guidance or service were currently available for producing PLS for DTA reviews and because it was anticipated that there was at present a paucity of experience within the Cochrane Consumer Network (CCN) that would allow members to prepare PLS of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy research. Janet agreed that DTA reviews should not have PLS at present, since they would each have a well constructed abstract. The way they were rendered by Wiley should not indicate that the PLS was missing. A process should be established to look at the requirements for PLS, and the group (comprising the DTA initiative, a representative from the CCN and Wiley) should come back to the Steering Group with proposals. The implications for RevMan and Archie should also be considered. Nick pointed out that the DTA Continental Europe Support Unit work plan included development of PLS for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews, and Janet, Jon and Rob agreed to explore this further.
Action: Janet, Jon, Monica, Rob

10.2 Proposal for the formation of a DTA editorial board: Jon explained that each DTA review would be signed off at the protocol and review stage by the working group to indicate that the methodological content was accurate; this process might not be needed indefinitely. The Steering Group asked for this working group to identify options for alternative names to ‘editorial board’, and suggest them to the Publishing Policy Group, together with suggestions for the appointment process to the group. The Steering Group thanked the working group for their progress on this initiative. They were asked to start thinking of a working model and how this might fit with the new Editor-in-Chief and Co-ordinating Editors’ board. The requested budget of 250 GBP for working group teleconferences was approved.
Action: Jon

10.3 Proposal for continued funding of DTA Register from 2009 to 2011: Rob, Jon, Jonathan and Narelle declared an interest in this item and left the room for the discussion about funding. Sally declared an interest as a member of the Renal Group’s advisory board but did not feel conflicted in discussing funding. Nick also declared an interest, as a member of the DTA working group. After discussion, it was agreed to fund one of the two requested Information Scientist posts over three years (77,830 AUD per year). If the applicants chose to adjust the funding so that they concentrated spending in the first year, that was their choice, on condition that they gave first attention to the production of Cochrane DTA reviews by supporting authors and Review Groups. In the light of the reduced funding, they would need to reduce their work plan, particularly with regard to downloading all records indexed in MEDLINE with ‘Sensitivity and specificity’ for the years 1997 to 2006. Seeking funding from alternative sources was strongly encouraged. Lorne agreed to relay the decision to the applicants.
Action: Lorne

10.4 Continental Europe Support Unit (CESU) - Second progress report:
This report was acknowledged with appreciation.

10.5 Continental Europe Support Unit - Request for extension of funding: Rob declared his interest in this item, and left the room for the decision about funding, as did Jon and Jonathan. Beforehand, Rob reported that this two-year project was on schedule overall. He reported that Review Groups were relieved that assistance with DTA reviews was available to them. He was seeking continued support and intensified training and support to Review Groups for the next three years. It was agreed to provide funding of 49K Euros for one additional year, building in a review at the Steering Group meeting during the Freiburg Colloquium or the mid-year meeting in 2009 in Copenhagen with regard to worldwide support. The list of deliverables, however, would have to be reconsidered by the CESU team. Joy abstained from voting on this decision.
Action: Rob

10.6 DTA reviews - Support for Cochrane Review Groups in North America: This was discussed and agreed to be in need of attention. The DTA working group would consider models for provision of support and bring forward proposals in the near future.
Action: Jon

11 DTA register - third progress report

This item was for information only. Thanks were expressed to Ruth Mitchell for her report and her hard work in this area.

12 Publication of The Cochrane Library

12.1 Wiley report: Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert presented her six-monthly report to the Steering Group on behalf of John Wiley and Sons. She expanded on the information she had provided in her backgrou