revman atmosphere

Document Sample
revman atmosphere Powered By Docstoc
					From left: Mette, Nancy, Mark, Peter, Alastair, Rob, Andrew, Peer, Theo, Henning, Rick and Karin, April 28 2006

      ANNUAL REPORT 2006
                    The CCCG annual report 2006:

   1.   Overall remarks and news from the editorial office                 p 2
   2.   Meetings in 2006                                                   p 5
   3.   News from the Cochrane Collaboration                               p 7
   4.   Facts and figures for CCCG 2006                                    p 9
   5.   Publications and presentations 2006                                p 12
   6.   Milestones for CCCG 2006, and goals for 2007                       p 14
   7.   Budget                                                             p 15

The report will be distributed in hardcopy to our sponsors; Department of Surgery K – and
the Bispebjerg Hospital Administration; the Nordic Cochrane Centre; the Danish Health
Technology Assessment Institute (MTV); the Cochrane Steering Group; co-workers; editors
and newcomers. It will be distributed by e-mail to all on our mailing list who have an
electronic mailbox.

Overall remarks and news from the editorial office
CCCG succeeded in publishing 15 new protocols, 5 new reviews, as well as 4 substantially
updates of previously published reviews. Seventeen new review titles were registered with
the Cochrane Collaboration Titles Database.
We would like to thank our team – staff, editors, authors and referees – for their hard work
and collegial support during the year. We have spent a lot of time to improve the editorial
processes and resources for authors, to find ways to ensure that our reviews are of high
quality. Many reviews covered by the scope of CCCG are often difficult and complex,
challenging the presentation, but transparency in the editorial process and constructive
dialog between referees and authors leads to high quality reviews.
January 1st did not only mean the beginning of 2007, but also a reconstruction of the
Copenhagen Hospital Administration – now part of a larger Region. Most likely, the CCCG
core funding will continue in the coming years.
August 2006 our Trials Search Coordinator, Karin Nielsen, gave birth to a daughter. Karin
will be on maternity leave until November 2007. Some of Karins responsibilities will be
undertaken by Mette Agerkvist, so we will continue to support our authors with searches for
clinical trials.
The current budget allows part time employment of one or two persons, who will be
commited to one or two of our high priority projects in 2007. In November 2006 Sune Høirup
Petersen joined the team, and is tow holder on a couple of our „hibernating‟ protocols. A
formal introduction to Sune can be read below.
Another person could be allocated one of our high priority titles, for example „Hormone
replacement therapy for menopausal women and the risk of colon cancer‟, from developing
the protocol to the full review. This will be determined in the near future.

Editorial challenges for the future

The Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group now enters it´s 10th year in function. Can we be
satisfied? Well – 36 reviews, of which several have been updated more than once – 52
protocols, of which most will end up as finished reviews is not bad, bearing in mind that the
average production time for one review exceeds 2 years. Many thanks to authors, peer
referees and the editorial board and staff for making this possible.

Besides this the CCCG as well as the whole Collaboration is now recognized as one of the
most valid sources of evidence for the choice of treatment in specified clinical situations.
This can be seen as active members of the group increasingly are being invited to give
guest lectures all around the world on both methodological and clinical questions. The
number of citations of reviews is increasing, and we are being used as peers for both paper
journals and applications for funding for several official entities.

In spite of this several matters still contain problems. There are the traditional ones, which
we have been discussing for years; optimizing editorial process, getting authors to update
their reviews in time, reviews on observational studies, reviews on diagnostic studies.
Besides these new problems have been raised. Citations of Cochrane Reviews are now
being counting in order to get an impact factor. Due to the system it is now best to publish in
the first issue of a year, and not to update your review more frequent than every second
year – even though new important knowledge has become available. This might
compromise rapid distribution of important knowledge, if one find it important to obtain an as
high impact factor as possible.

The impact factor system has great influence on the choice of where to publish your data.
The Cochrane Library probably cannot expect to obtain an impact factor higher than 1 for
the first many years. This means that authors will choose to publish in traditional paper
journals. We know that systematic reviews in paper journals not always fulfill the same
methodological criteria as required in the Cochrane Library, even though they often use the
RevMan software for their analyses. We have double-publication agreements with many
journals and often the Cochrane Version of a systematic review is far more comprehensive
than the paper version. Taking these facts in mind we do not cohere to the official Cochrane
Politics that in case of double publication, the Cochrane version should always be published
before the paper version. Authors will in light of the impact factor problem most often chose
to publish only the paper version, and we will miss the comprehensive and important
Cochrane version. The CCCG will not accept these politics.
We will advocate for that each individual author choose where to publish first.

There has been an ongoing discussion about the legalities of the form and consequences if
authors do not complete their review. For example there is currently no resolution, if authors
sign up for reviews and later choose to publish outside CC. A suggestion could be in a form
of a „letter of agreement‟, which should be a part of the ongoing conversation between the
CRGs and the authors about mutual obligations and expectations when publishing in The
Cochrane Library.

CCCG Specialised Register

The CCCG specialized trials register, SR-COLOCA, is kept up-to-date by searching the
Cochrane Library Central Register for Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) on a quarterly basis using
our seven specific search strategies and by including all handsearch results within our field
of interest. It includes all identified randomized and controlled clinical trials. The specialized
trials register has now been cleaned according to the style guide for submission of
specialised trials register to CENTRAL. In addition, papers dealing with the epidemiological
aspects of risk factors for colorectal cancer, observational studies on surgical procedures,
and studies on diagnostic and screening methods, non-RCT, meta-analyses and reviews
within the scope of the CCCG are included in a miscellaneous register. All the trials are
either extracted from Central by using the seven specific topic search strategies of the
CCCG or identified systematically by the hand-search procedures from for example
Conference Proceedings.

The SR-COLOCA now contains 9676 records of which 2645 are CCTs and 7031 are RCTs.
In addition to this, we still gather observational studies, non-RCTs, meta-analysis and
reviews within our area in a miscellaneous register, which now contains 942 records.

A submission of the Specialized Register of all Cochrane groups to The Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was planned to take place in January 2007, but
due to unforeseen difficulties, the submission was postponed. The next attempt will be made
in the beginning of April.
The SR-COLOCA is available to all authors and members of the CCCG upon request, where
we can run a search for interested persons. As we use the bibliographic software ProCite,
searches will be forwarded as text files, unless recipients also use ProCite.
We will not make hardcopies of all the SR-COLOCA tagged trials, since many of the trials
are now available as a PDF file. But if the authors need help to get access to a specific trial,
which is not available as a PDF file, we will be able to order the trial through our Library.

The CCCG handsearch activities have been very limited due to the fact that one staff
member is on maternity leave.

The new information managing system – IMS

All Cochrane Groups are now using the IMS system for module submission and managing
the review titles, whereas editorial handling has been postponed. In addition, the
development and introduction to the new RevMan 5 has been delayed, but most likely to be
introduced late 2007.
Details on the IMS system can be found at
Just to summarise the most important new benefits for review authors and editors:

   1. The new IMS is Internet-based, and there will be a central check in/check out
      system, leading to easier sharing of your reviews
   2. Simpler interface – an interface familiar to most people: Windows Explorer.
   3. You will be able to send reviews directly from RevMan without having to locate the
      correct file and attach it to an e-mail
   4. Central archiving and backup will protect you from data loss
   5. There will be improved functionality for tracking changes within your review

Wiley still wants a centralized copy editing, recognizing the value of working with RevMan,
within the IMS environment, and in communication with the authors/CRGs (note that this is
the last round of editing, using the Style Guide, not editing for language or content).

Introduction of the new Staff member, Sune Høirup Petersen.

Sune Høirup Petersen hold a degree in Philosophy and Theory of Science, and has been
associated with the CCCG since November 2006 and will be here part time.
His primary task will be to follow up on published protocols, which seems to be progressing
somewhat slowly. Evidence is evidence, but the changing nature of `current practice´ might
force us to adjust the scope of a protocol just slightly, as is the case with the title
“Postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for radically operated Dukes´ C rectal cancer”.
Updated searches, data extractions and entry in RevMan should be done by the middle of
March, and the further progress will depend on the authors‟ workload.
Another title Sune has been assigned to is ¨Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for
metastatic colorectal cancer¨. Since the original authors have declined to complete the
review, it‟s our hope that others will be interested; as the editorial group still finds that the
review should be published.
In addition, Sune will assist on an upcoming title concerning the use and misuse of meta-
analyses in colorectal surgery. Currently in its early stages, but should bloom as a full
systematic review, although not as a Cochrane review.

Meetings in 2006
The CCCG editor meeting April 28 2006 Bispebjerg Hospital Copenhagen

Present at the meeting were: Andrew Renehan, Rob Madoff, Richard Nelson, Nancy Baxter,
Mark Jeffery, Theo Wiggers, Alastair Munro, Peter Jüni, Peer Wille-Jørgensen, Henning
Andersen, Karin Nielsen. Mette Agerkvist took the minutes.

Jacob Riis from the Nordic CC gave a presentation of the new Information Management
System. The new IMS system won‟t affect the editorial work until late 2007.

Peter Jüni presented the challenges in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies.
An update on progress within The Cochrane Collaboration was send in April by Jon Deeks
and summarizes where we are right now. This summary can be forwarded upon request to
the editorial office.

Karin Nielsen gave a status on the Specialized Register and several issues were discussed:
It was discussed whether hand searching should be pursued and it was decided that hand
searching generally should be done from 1996 and forward.
There will still be hand searched for some topics like e.g. hernia before 1996.
Studies published before 1996 concerning the CCCG topics should still be included in the
SR. For each topic (and review) a “backward” deadline for studies should be defined.
Different ways of searching were discussed and Alastair Munro proposed that Karin should
get access to OVID from the Nordic CC.
It was decided that authors should follow new guidelines for reporting search strategies and
publish the search strategies in their review as an additional table and later on as an
appendix when the IMS allows it. It will raise the quality of the reviews if it‟s possible to see
how the search has been carried out, and much easier to rerun the search if necessary.

Henning Keinke Andersen brought different topics up for discussion.
- The budget was approved and seems secured in the future, even as the hospital
administration was reorganized pr 2007.
- It was discussed how CCCG could raise additional funds and it was decided to include
mailing services from HTA and BMJ for probably commissioned tasks.
- It was decided to take action on a number of out-of-date titles, and withdrawn titles should
be available for other authors (if prioritized by the CCCG editorial team).
- We discussed how to acknowledge previous authors if the review is updated by a new
author, but we came to no conclusion.
- The time schedule and policies in the CCCG module were accepted.
- In order not to waste time on low priority reviews in the future, the initial synopsis will be
sent to editors who inform the editorial office whether it‟s a high or low priority title. If it‟s low
priority, another high priority title should be proposed to the author.
- Often authors don‟t update their reviews and the editorial office spends a lot of time trying
to make authors update them. Therefore, the editorial office will send a list of all out-of-date
reviews to the editors on an annually basis. The key editor should either keep tracking down
the author for an update or mark somewhere in Wiley that the review hasn‟t been updated
and the reason. Editors decide whether it‟s interesting and necessary to update the review in
question. We still have to find a solution to how to insert the editors‟ notes concerning
update in Wiley, preferably on the default page so it‟s visible right away.
-It was decided that editors should try to appoint peer referees for the reviews they are
involved in.
- Statistical supervisor: Rick Nelson will ask Sally Freels, Chicago, to become statistical
supervisor for CCCG. The office will also address her.
- Recruitment of new editors: Henning will try to attract new editors at the ASCO meeting.
Theo Wiggers will contact the Hernia society with a view to finding a new editor within the
area. Rick Nelson will contact a potential oncology editor.
- For peer referees outside the CC, we will offer to send documents as pdf file instead of
Revman file if requested, to avoid time consuming introduction to RevMan and successive
problems with handling and export of the titles.
- Everybody was in favour of an open review process. After all peer reviews has been
received, they will be circulated amongst all peers on that specific review/protocol.

Next CCCG editorial meeting

Next meeting will be held in 2007 and will preferably be a 1½ days meeting. It‟s difficult to
meet at conferences, as all editors do not attend them. We will try to coordinate this with an
eventual Workshop in the Nordic Cochrane Center. Possible date is September 21, 2007

The Cochrane GI symposium at the AGA/DDW meeting in Los Angeles, May 2006

Since 2001, the four Cochrane Review Groups involved in gastroenterology have
collaborated in manning a display booth and demonstration of the Cochrane Library at the
annual Digestive Diseases Week meeting of the American Gastroenterology Association.
This is the largest gathering of gastroenterologists in the world and usually attracts more
than 15,000 delegates. Each year has seen a growing recognition of the Collaboration and
interest in our activities.
After last years succes in Chicago, where CCCG hosted a symposium: “The surgical GI-
patient - an evidence based approach”, attended by 4-500 delegates, The Cochrane
Hepato-Biliary Group facilitated a symposium this year.
Chaired by Christian Gluud and Ronald Koretz four Session speakers gave the following
Christian Gluud: Why Surrogate Outcomes are not Necessarily Useful Outcomes in Clinical
Jesper Brok: Interventions for Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C
Yan Gong: Interventions for Patients with Primary Biliary Cirrhosis
Ronald Koretz: Evidence-based Nutrition for the Liver Patient

In 2007, the Cochrane IBD/FBD Group will host the AGA/DDW Cochrane GI symposium.

The XIV Cochrane Colloquium, Dublin, Ireland, 23-26 October

Co-ed. Peer Wille-Jørgensen, RGC Henning Keinke Andersen, and TSC Mette Agerkvist
represented the CCCG editorial office. Mark Jeffrey and Andrew Renehan and Rick Nelson
represented our editorial board.
The Colloquium offered a variety of plenary sessions, meetings and workshops, and some
good discussions. The Collaboration is growing and this calls for different structures to be
able to make decisions and highlighted the need for efficient communication with the rest of
the collaboration. Moreover, the collaboration is getting ready to embrace new types of
reviews as Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews and Umbrella reviews. And last but not least,
the increasing amount of clinical studies and articles has led to the decision that the groups‟
specialized registers should be converted into study-based registers in order to get a better

overview over the references. This raised some discussion at the TSC-meeting. So, the
colloquium offered a lot to discuss and to decide. And as usual, the atmosphere was very
lively and friendly.
As something new, Wiley had set up the facilities for web-broadcasting the plenary sessions
and the Annual General Meeting. In this way, members of the Cochrane Collaboration who
weren‟t present in Dublin could follow these sessions.

The former President of Ireland and current President of Realizing Rights, Mary Robinson
paid a visit to the Colloquium and made an enthusiastic and touching speech about taking a
“Human Rights Approach to Tackling the AIDS Pandemic”. People from Papua New Guinea,
Tunisia and Uganda participated in this debate via videoconference.

The conference dinner with River Dancers completed a well-organized program with lots of
instructive workshops, sessions and social events. We thank the UK Cochrane center for the
successful organisation of the Colloquium.

In 2007, the XV Cochrane Colloquium will be held in São Paolo, Brazil, 23-27 October.

News from the Cochrane Collaboration:
In 2007 the impact factor will be determined for Cochrane reviews, based on citations of
1126 reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2005.

The ancient Comments and Criticism system is now replaced by a new centrally „feedback‟
system, organized by Wiley. Will be displayed in the Cochrane Library under „add/view
feedback‟. The Review Groups will still receive the input from Wiley.

The Steering Group will propose more simple rules for „when a review is substantially
updated‟. This is important to establish, as only substantially updated reviews are presented
in Medline. Otherwise „old outdated‟ versions will be present in Medline.

From November 1st 2006, all new titles are registered through the interface „ARCHIE‟ and
will be displayed centrally.

The Steering Group approved the following template for making declarations of interest:

What is a ‘conflict’ of interest? A conflict of interest exists when a secondary interest (e.g.
personal financial gain) can influence, or have the appearance of influencing, judgements
regarding the primary interest (e.g. service on the Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group).
Steering Group members are asked to disclose all relationships with commercial
organisations that could pose a conflict of interest that would reasonably appear to be
related to the primary interest; this disclosure is updated quarterly. The term 'related
organisation' below means any organisation related to health care or medical research.

A. Financial interests
In the last five years, have you:

   1. Received research funding: any grant, contract or gift, commissioned research, or
      fellowship from a related organisation to conduct research? If yes, list.
   2. Had paid consultancies: any paid work, consulting fees (in cash or kind) for an
      organisation? If yes, list.
   3. Received honoraria: one-time payments (in cash or kind) from a related
        organisation? If yes, list.
   4.   Served as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or held a position of
        management with a related organisation? If yes, list.
   5.   Possessed share-holdings, stock, stock options, equity with a related organisation
        (excludes mutual funds or similar arrangements where the individual has no control
        over the selection of the shares)? If yes, list.
   6.   Received personal gifts from a related organisation? If yes, list.
   7.   Had an outstanding loan with a related organisation? If yes, list.
   8.   Received royalty payments from a related organisation? If yes, list.

B. Non-financial interests
Do you have any other competing interests that could pose a conflict of interest that would
reasonably appear to be related to the primary interest? If yes, explain.

Cochrane editors and industry sponsored reviews

Lisa Bero reported that the Centre Directors had discussed the concerns expressed in the
proposal that had been submitted to the Centre Directors and the Steering Group by Peter
Gøtzsche on behalf of the Advisory Board of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Although the
Centre Directors did not support the proposal in its current form, they did support the
recommendation that Cochrane editors and other members of CRG editorial teams should
make declarations of interest in Review Group modules and keep this information updated.
The Steering Group agreed in principle that declaration of interest statements for members
of [CRGs (editorial base staff and editors), Methods Groups (Convenors, Co-Convenors and
administrative staff), Fields/Networks (Directors, Convenors, Co-ordinators, Co-ordinating
Committees, and Administrators), Centres and Centre Branches (all staff who are involved
in the review process, including Centre Directors, scientific staff, administrative staff, and
TSCs/Information Specialists)] should be published in their module. Lisa Bero proposed
asking editors, authors and others to provide structured declarations of interest, along the
lines of the declarations of Steering Group members in The Cochrane Library.

Introduction package

It was decided that a small group of RGC‟s should work toward an introduction package,
designed for new collaborators in the Collaboration, to help newcomers to get started with
RevMan etc. Valid for both editors , authors and other interested persons.

Updating of the reviews

What is the definition of updating? The „what‟s new‟ section is often not completed for an
update, so it is currently difficult to recognise what has changed with an update. Paul Garner
is doing some work into updating with longer time periods for „stable reviews‟, this may help
keep down impact factor scores. It was commented that it would be good to have the „what‟s
new‟ section being more structured, e.g. has it changed the conclusion, are there any new
trials? Perhaps a sentence on future prospects for the review!
The substantive updates paper is being updated and will be discussed by HAG at a
teleconference after the Colloquium.


It was felt that Wiley have done a good job so far in taking the Cochrane Collaboration
forward into the 21st Century and are helping to improve the profile of the organisation.
Wiley should be encouraged to improve the image of the organisation yet further to enable

their contract to be re-negotiated. It was asked whether the steering group held a list of the
targets for Wiley and it was thought most likely that Nick Royle held such a list, it would be
good to have them distributed to Co-Eds, RGCs and TSCs.

Below are some useful links that help people learn how to make the best use of the
resources available in The Cochrane Library:

Webex training for The Cochrane Library at:

Demos for The Cochrane Library at:

User Manuals on The Cochrane Library at:

… and still remember

The licence agreement with Wiley allows a 25% reduction on books published by Wiley, for
authors publishing in the Cochrane Library, also valid for authors to published protocols.

Facts and figures for CCCG, 2006:
Registered within the Cochrane Collaboration in January 1998.

The remit of CCCG is to support the preparation and continuous maintenance of systematic
reviews within the following topics:

       All aspects of colorectal neoplasia, anal neoplasia and cancer of the small bowel
       (excluding the duodenum)
       Peritoneal diseases
       Colonic diverticulitis
       Hernias (excluding diaphragmatic hernias)
       Benign proctological conditions
       Surgical aspects of inflammatory bowel diseases

The CCCG covers the following specialities:

       Surgery (both general surgeons and colorectal specialists)
       Medical oncology
       Radiation oncology
       Specialised nurses

The CCCG will deal with all aspects of these diseases: prevention, screening, diagnosis,
treatment (elective and acute), rehabilitation, follow-up programmes, palliative care and
quality of life and health economics.
To date, 123 titles have been registered within the Cochrane Collaboration, of which 36 are
published as full reviews, and 52 as peer reviewed, published protocols.

The approved and published protocols with byline contact authors in 2006 were:

       1.     Ahmed Ali U. Open versus laparoscopic (asssisted) Ileo Pouch Anal
              Anastomosis for Ulcerative Colitis or Familial Adenomatous Polyposis .
       2.     Al Asfoor A. Resection of liver metastases versus non-surgical interventions
              for colorectal cancer.
       3.     Amaragiri S. Surgery for acute complications of diverticular disease: Primary
              or secondary anastomosis after sigmoid resection.
       4.     Amato B. Shouldice technique versus other techniques for inguinal hernia
       5.     Brown CJ. Straight coloanal anastomosis versus colonic J pouch versus
              transverse coloplasty after anterior resection for rectal cancer .
       6.     Ceelen W. Preoperative chemoradiation versus radiation alone for stage II
              and III resectable rectal cancer .
       7.     De Haas DDF. Concomitant hyperthermia and radiation therapy for treating
              locally advanced rectal cancer.
       8.     Manterola C. Analgesia for patients with acute abdominal pain.
       9.     Renehan AG. Sugarbaker procedure for pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP).
       10.    Singh H. Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy.
       11.    Vedula SS . Closure methods for laparotomy incisions.
       12.    Wu Y. Herbal medicine for relapse and metastasis in patients operated for
              colorectal cancer.
       13.    Tjandra J. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy
       14.    Jacob T. Surgical intervention for chronic anorectal fistula
       15.    Wei AC. Radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver metastases from
              colorectal cancer

The overall approved and published reviews with byline contact authors in 2006 were:

       1.     Amato A. Perioperative blood transfusions for the recurrence of colorectal
       2.     Andersen HK. Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of colorectal surgery versus
              later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications.
       3.     Breukink S. Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal
       4.     Jayaraman S. Stapled versus conventional surgery for hemorrhoids
       5.     Matos D. Ileostomy or colostomy for temporary decompression of colorectal

The updated reviews with byline contact authors in 2006 were:

       1.     Nelson R. Hepatic artery adjuvant chemotherapy for patients having resection
              or ablation of colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver.
       2.     Nelson R. Non surgical therapy for anal fissure
       3.     Hewitson P. Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using the Faecal Occult Blood
              Test, Hemoccult
       4.     Jeffery GM. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic
              colorectal cancer

Editorial panel of the CCCG

Peer Wille-Jørgensen (surgery, DK), Co-ordinating Editor
Andrew Renehan (surgery, UK)
Alastair Munro (radiation oncology, UK)
Richard Nelson (surgery, UK)
Mark Jeffery (oncology, NZ)
Theo Wiggers (surgery and oncology, NL)
Rob Madoff (surgery, USA)
Nancy Baxter (surgery, Canada)
Praveen Roy (US) is comment- and criticism editor

CCCG editorial office in Copenhagen

Review Group Coordinator, Henning Keinke Andersen (HKA02@BBH.REGIONH.DK)
Trials Search Coordinator, Mette Agerkvist (MA40@BBH.REGIONH.DK)
Staff member, Sune Høirup Petersen (SPET0035@BBH.REGIONH.DK)
Coordinating Editor, Peer Wille-Jørgensen (PWJ01@BBH.REGIONH.DK)

Contact address:

Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group, Bispebjerg Hospital, Building 11B ground floor,
23 Bispebjerg Bakke, DK 2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark

Phone: +45 35312704 (Henning), +45 35313731 (Mette), or +45 35313086 (Peer)

Fax: +45 35861831

The list of external peer referees now consists of more than 90 experts, acting on a
voluntary basis in the editorial process. Fortunately, as the ongoing activities within the
Cochrane collaboration become more and more visible, we experience an increased interest
in becoming involved.

Peer Wille-Jørgensen stepped down from the Advisory Committee for Cochrane News, for
which members are appointed for 2 years and may be extended for an additional 2 years.
Peer hold this position for 4 years!

The review process

CCCG constantly update the guidelines, which principally are summaries in the Cochrane
Handbook and primarily meant as a supplement. In addition, we have developed checklists
to facilitate meeting the standards of the Cochrane Collaboration.
They all give valuable hints to the review process as well as deadlines to be met, in order to
ensure a reasonable progress for all parties involved.
Guidelines and checklists are downloadable from the web page, also offering
links to valuable tools for doing a systematic review.

CCCG updated policy on the review process, from title to review

As we have now exceeded more than 120 registered titles within the Collaboration, we still
use too much time on reminding authors on their obligations, so we will continue our
„strengthen up process‟ initiated in 2006.
Upon registration of a review title, authors will be asked to submit a title and synopsis for
external presentation. Authors will be reminded of their obligations once the title is
registered, which is a draft protocol within 3-6 months after registration, unless the author‟s
workload rectify postponement. If we don‟t receive a draft protocol, a „five months warning‟
will be sent to the authors, and if no feedback – the title will be offered other interested
Whilst we are always reluctant to withdraw a protocol, we must at the same time be realistic,
so titles, which are clearly not going to progress, will be removed from the Cochrane Library.
The Cochrane (and CCCG) policy is very clear, stating that protocols, which have been
published on the Cochrane Library for more than two years without progressing to the review
stage, must be withdrawn.
Reviews of whole entities within an area, resembling a chapter in a textbook should be
avoided. As a consequence of the new Cochrane policy, a systematic review does not
necessarily need to be based on randomised clinical trials. There may be important clinical
questions, (e.g. surgical procedures) where only a very limited number (or often none) of
randomised trials exist, or where randomised trials are not feasible, as well as reviews on
diagnostic tests.
Upon approval of the protocol, a draft systematic review is expected within 12-18 months
from registration of the title, although this is dependent on the complexity of the review and
the workload of the author(s).
For finishing up reviews we assure all possible help within the time-scale 18 months from
publication of the protocol. Hereafter we will put the title on stand-by, and the CCCG editorial
panel will evaluate it accordingly.
Furthermore, updating of reviews is also a time consuming issue. However, we are confident
that this will be improved in the future. We realise that titles on obsolete techniques / clinical
questions hardly is going to be updated. Therefore we have suggested that the Steering
Group consider implementation of a „current status note‟ in the abstract of the review – to
inform that this version of the review is the final one, and that no updates is expected (and
the reason why).
For editorial processing we continued the implementation of shorter time for the editorial
process, for both authors and editors. We now clearly indicate deadlines for each title.
Overall idea is to avoid manuscripts staying in the bottom of the pile on the desk, and also to
reduce our editorial office workload, especially up to a module submission. The general rule
for authors is 6 weeks prior to module submission. No reminders will be forwarded, and
publication will be postponed accordingly. If copy-editing reveals too much work (stylistics
etc.), the manuscript will be returned and publication delayed.

Publications in 2006
Articles and reviews:
Nelson R.: Anal Fissure: BMJ Clinical Evidence

Nelson R.: Anal Fissure. American College of Physicians Information & Education

Nelson R: Cesarean Section and anal incontinence risk. European Society of Coloprotology,
Dis. Colon & Rectum, 2006; 49 (10): 1587-95

Nelson R: Cosmetic Surgery in Ancient India, Encyclopeadia of History of Science,
Technology, and Medicine in non-Western Cultures, in press

Bojesen SE et al. (Peer Wille Jørgensen as co-author): Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal
cancer (HNPCC) in Denmark - a Health Technology Assessment report

Oral presentations:

Wille-Jørgensen P, Guanaga K, Matos D, Castro AA, Atallah AN. Mechanical bowel
preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Update on a Meta-analysis. ASCRS-annual
meeting, Seattle, Juni 2006

Wille-Jørgensen P. Preoperative bowel cleansing. European Society of Coloproctology 15/9
2006, Lissabon

Wille-Jørgensen P. Control after cureative surgery for Colorectal Cancer. 20th International
Congress on Digestive Surgery, 30/11 2006.

Wille-Jørgensen P. Preoperative bowel Cleansing. ESSO, Venedig 1/2 2006.

EACP- course in colorectal cancer 13/9 2006 i Lissabon, Portugal: Emne: Evidence based
treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Nelson R: Hemochromatosis and colorectal cancer risk. 9th International Symposium on
Metal ions in Biology and Medicine, Lisbon, May 2006

Nelson R: Cesarean Section and anal incontinence risk. European Society of Coloprotology,
Lisbon September 2006

Poster presentations:
Poster P040: XIV Cochrane Colloquium, Dublin Oct. 2006. Schmidt LM, Rasmussen MS,
Wille-Jørgensen P. Evidence of evidence in clinical practice: silver anniversary of the
thromboprophylaxis survey in Danish surgical departments.

“CoRect News” – official newsletter of The Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group.
Vol.10, issue 1, 2006 – issued in August 2006

From the annual ASCO meeting, Atlanta, USA, June, 2006
From the XIV Cochrane Colloquium 2006, Dublin, Ireland, October 2005

Exhibition Stand Presentations in 2006
Cochrane Gastrointestinal Groups, DDW, Los Angeles, USA, May 20-25
Colorectal Cancer Group, ASCO, Atlanta, USA, June 2-6

Cochrane Gastrointestinal symposium in 2006
Session Title: If We Make Laboratory Test Better, Do We Make Patients
Better? A Cochrane AGA Symposium facilitated by the Cochrane Hepato-biliary Group, at
the DDW annual meeting, May 23 2006, Chaired by Christian Gluud and Ronald Koretz.
Session Speakers & Presentation Titles can be seen in a previous part of this report.

Milestones for CCCG in 2006
We achieved all of the following goals:

To promote CCCG and the ongoing activities at international congresses:
- the ASCO-meeting in Atlanta, USA, with a booth
- the ASCRS-meeting in Seattle, USA, with a poster
- the EACP-meeting in Lisbon, Portugal, with two oral presentations
- the annual Cochrane Colloquium in Dublin, Ireland

To forward the annual report of 2005 to sponsors, collaborators and other interested

To arrange and chair an editors meeting in Copenhagen on April 28

To improve the process on updating reviews

To secure and improve our current funding

To evaluate the current list of registered review titles, hereunder identify new priority review
topics and identify new reviewers to these in collaboration with the CCCG editors.

To publish at least 5 new reviews and 5 new protocols in the Cochrane Library

Periodically keep our specialized register up-dated

And partly achieved the following goals:

To appoint new editors with oncology (non-surgical) background (we recruited peer refs)

To implement the IMS-system in the daily practical work with reviews in the editorial office as
well as amongst the reviewers and peers (postponed by the IMS team)

Assist in the development of search strategies to all our registered title, protocols and
reviews that need an up-date

Forward this annual report to members and funders in March
Hold a Review Group Editors meeting in Copenhagen (September)
Evaluate our list of high priority review titles, and propose 10 new titles
Keep our specialized register up-dated
Assist in the development of search strategies to all our registered titles, protocols and
reviews that need an up-date
Reorganize the CCCG Web-page and publish it in Cochrane regi
Publish 5 new reviews and 5 new protocols in the Cochrane Library
Appoint more editors in 2007, preferable with oncology background.
Employ a person with academic background to write one or two of our high priority titles
Present the ongoing activities at international congresses (ASCO, ASCGBI)

Budget for CCCG 2006
CCCG was allocated 978.000 DKr from the H:S Copenhagen Hospital Administration, plus
additional 128.000 DKr as compensation for Karin Nielsen's maternity leave.
And transferred 145.000 DKr from extramural sources.

Expenses in 2006 (all in DKr):

Salaries                                                                 855.000
Travels/meetings                                                         166.000
Office / IT hard- software / misc                                         31.000
     Total                                                              1052.000

Travels and meetings in 2006:

       London, UK, NCRI (Co-ed)                                            1.500
       Copenhagen, Denmark, CCCG editors meeting                          62.400
       Atlanta, USA, ASCO meeting (RGC)                                   16.400
       Seattle, USA, ASCRS meeting (Co-ed)                                 8.100
       Lisbon, Portugal, EACP meeting (Co-ed)                              4.100
       Rome, Italy, Int. Soc. Dig. Surg. Meeting (Co-ed)                   4.300
       Hong Kong, Asiapacific EBM meeting (RGC)                           10.600
       Dublin, Ireland, Cochrane Colloquium (Co-ed, RGC, TSC)             49.100
       Domestic travel expenses/local mtg‟s/Misc.                          9.500

Estimated Budget for CCCG for 2007
Sources of Support:
       Transferred from 2006 (Extramural)                                 131.000
       Transferred from 2006 (Intramural)                                  64.000
       Region H Hospital Administration                                 1.053.000
Total:                                                                  1.248.000

       Salaries (RGC, TSC, part time staff)                               950.000
       Travels/meetings                                                   140.000
       Office / IT / support misc.                                         30.000
Total:                                                                  1.120.000

                                                                CCCG, February 2007


Shared By: