Use the touch screen. Basics Personalise your phone. Open and close an app. Control volume. Battery life. Save on data roaming costs. Write text. Date and time. Clock and alarm. Connect with your friends and family Calls.
Send and receive messages. Get social. Camera Camera basics. Record a video. Use your camera like a pro. Save your photos and videos to a memory card. Your photos and videos. Internet and connections Activate Wi-Fi. Use a mobile data connection. Browse the internet. Close a connection. Music and videos Music. Organise your day Calendar. Maps Find places and get directions.
Download and update maps. Use location services. Apps and services Google Play. Warning: If you install a software update, you cannot use the device, even to make emergency calls, until the installation is completed and the device is restarted.
Before starting the update, connect a charger or make sure the device battery has enough power, and connect to Wi-Fi, as the update packages may use up a lot of mobile data.
Our chat service is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Simply fill in your contact details and a we'll connect you to a support representative. Tell us about your problem and we'll get back to you via email.
Support home. User guides and manuals Nokia X Apps, updates, and backups. Get started Keep your phone up to date. Keys and parts. Insert the SIM and memory cards.
Charge your phone. Switch on and set up your phone. Lock or unlock your phone. Use the touch screen. Basics Personalize your phone. Control volume. Automatic text correction. Google Assistant. Battery life. FM Radio. Connect with your friends and family Calls.
It was suggested that the Co-Chairs ought to receive a stipend for fulfilling this role, but it was pointed out that Steering Group members are trustees of the charity and, as such, they are not permitted under UK charity law to receive remuneration for their services. Nick asked people to send their comments on the Co-Chair electoral process and eligibility criteria to Alessandro Liberati, chair of the panel conducting the review of the Steering Group.
Action: Peter, Jon Lorne Becker was then connected to the meeting by telephone. He explained his reasons for being prepared to take on the role of Co-Chair of the Steering Group. The Steering Group approved Lorne fulfilling this role for two years from October Jordi thanked him for being prepared to take on this responsibility, which would come into effect at the Annual General Meeting in Dublin in October Steering Group five-year review Alessandro Liberati, chair of the panel conducting the five-year review of the Steering Group, was connected to the meeting by telephone for this item only.
Alessandro reported that there had been clear terms of reference for this review, which had been adhered to. He had received 70 out of potential completed questionnaires, but disappointingly only 28 of the 50 Review Groups had replied.
Funding was mentioned most frequently as an issue of concern, as were the quality of reviews and the challenge of updating them. It was agreed that the final report should be included on the agenda for the next Steering Group meeting in Dublin in October , the deadline for which is 25 September Peter and Adrian offered to work with Alessandro in trying to obtain a one hundred per cent response rate from Cochrane Review Groups, by means of a personal approach to Co-ordinating Editors and Review Group Co-ordinators of the CRGs which had not yet responded to the questionnaire.
In the meantime, Alessandro would send a list of the non-responders to the relevant entity representatives to enlist their support in obtaining more responses. He apologised for not having yet acknowledged receipt of completed questionnaires and would do so as soon as possible. An increase in the approved budget, from to Euros, was approved for the functioning of this review panel.
Lisa offered to give Alessandro feedback on a draft approach to external organisations, with a request to interview them by telephone.
Mark thanked Alessandro and the other members of the panel for their hard work in conducting this review. After Alessandro left the meeting, the Steering Group discussed the length of the questionnaire and the difficulties of obtaining a consensus response from entities. Mark asked Steering Group members to e-mail him their concerns about surveying external organisations so that he could feed these back to Alessandro.
Action: Peter, Adrian , Everyone. The issue of how to deal with voting in more than one entity needs more thought, as duplicate entries for individuals make it impossible to aggregate votes. It was reaffirmed that the ranking and number of points received by each candidate should continue to be made public, as the number of votes would only be an indication of ranking if there were no aggregation. It was reiterated that people performing the role of Trials Search Co-ordinators TSCs in all types of entity should be eligible to nominate, stand and vote for the TSC representative on the Steering Group.
Authors of registered titles of new reviews are ineligible to nominate, stand and vote for the CRG author position; however, authors of published protocols as well as of published reviews are eligible to do so.
The process for electing Centre representatives should continue as at present, pending completion of the review of the Steering Group. The Elections Working Group should re-convene after completion of the Steering Group review and possible re-structure, to ensure that the description of the election process is still valid.
Monica clarified that the aggregation of votes would be done by the Secretariat in future, rather than by the entity electoral officers. Action: Jini, Monica. Liz asked for Fields to be included in the discussion of undertaking a strategic review of the Collaboration, due to their responsibility in relation to engagement with external stakeholders.
Lisa reported that the Centre Directors support this proposal, bringing in external people with business, non-profit and systematic review experience. Nick was asked to canvass the Centre Directors for names of organisations to be approached.
Nick and Donna would discuss the most appropriate way of involving Cochrane authors in this initiative. Nick said the likely timescale would be set after the appropriate consultations had taken place with stakeholders, by the time of the Dublin Colloquium.
He thought the review itself should take six to twelve months in order to do the job properly. It was agreed that this review should take place, and that Nick should prepare a plan for its conduct along the lines of Option 4 in his proposal, to present to the Steering Group in Dublin , when enough time should be allowed for a thorough discussion. Liz asked for synergy between this review and the five-year review of the Steering Group.
Rob reported that the Centre Directors had agreed at their meeting in Khon Kaen on the need not to be over-optimistic about the financial stability of the Collaboration. Action: Nick, Donna. Cochrane diagnostic reviews of test accuracy He explained that [part of the role of the original Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Working Group was to consider the creation of a database of reviews of test accuracy.
The Steering Group had initially] rejected the suggestion to do this, because [The Cochrane Collaboration] had the higher priority of establishing review groups to cover all areas of health care; however, the Steering Group had reversed this decision in because other priorities had by then been met. He suggested that outside funders might well find this new initiative attractive and be willing to support it.
This decision should be communicated in a sensitive way to entities, particularly those that are struggling financially, explaining that this is a bridging award to allow the momentum of the diagnostic test reviews initiative to be maintained while seeking other funding.
The decision to provide this funding was not conditional on the likely funding of the UK-based support centre for reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.
Action: Jon, Nick. Developing countries initiative DCI : registration as an entity The report of the meeting held in Barcelona in February was received with interest. Mark said that members of the DCI had initially applied to the Discretionary Fund for funds to hold this meeting. The Steering Group Executive had subsequently agreed to fund the meeting centrally instead.
Action: Zbys. The general principle was reiterated that the Collaboration website exists to serve the needs both of members of the Collaboration and of people external to it. The importance of publishing abstracts and plain language summaries of Cochrane reviews on the website was reaffirmed. It was agreed that the search facility needs to be improved. The option was approved of maintaining the website development project at the current pace with no new major developments Option 2 under paragraph 28 , with the website development team continuing to be hosted by the German Cochrane Centre.
Deborah said that the Collaboration website is a key factor in enabling people to locate The Cochrane Library. She said Wiley would like the user survey to be conducted on a regular basis, as its results had been extremely informative. There had been about , hits of The Cochrane Library last year via the site. Nick was asked to investigate additional sources of sponsorship for the website with the German Cochrane Centre, and to communicate the outcome of this discussion to the website development team.
Action: Nick. Funding Arbitration Panel membership Lisa described the current membership of this Panel. One of the Panel members had been finding it difficult to participate fully, due to many other commitments. However, Lisa explained that since the last Steering Group meeting there had only been two issues for the Panel to resolve. In view of the increased workload ahead for the Panel as the result of the discussion of item 24 below which had been discussed before this item , Lisa agreed to discuss with the Panel member whether or not it would be advisable to continue in this role.
Action: Lisa. Some possible lessons to be learned from Evidence Aid. Steff agreed to send it to the Co-Convenors of the Quality Advisory Group in order that any possible lessons to be learned could be taken on board. Jini was asked to e-mail the report to the Steering Group to enable entity representatives to forward it to their constituents.
Action: Steff, Jini. Cochrane Review Group issues : The person s employed to undertake this work should be experienced in preparing Cochrane reviews. Rob clarified that review groups would be asked to nominate those reviews most in need of updating. Rob explained that if the pilot project was successful, a future request for funding might be made to establish centralised updating as a regular procedure. However, it was agreed to fund this as a pilot, to a maximum of 65, Euros, to be spent within one financial year from the start of the project.
Rob was asked to rework the proposal into a project plan with deliverables and the lessons to be learned, and circulate it to the Steering Group. Comparisons should be made with similar pilot projects as part of this proposal. Adrian said that the earliest he might be able to join the working group would be after October Action: Rob The Working Group had also noted that confusion exists among people reading a PubMed abstract of a Cochrane review: the review might appear to be very old but could have been updated very recently.
Rob said that the working group looking at dates in reviews would make a written proposal to the Publishing Policy Group about adding a standard sentence to all abstracts of Cochrane reviews, saying that the reader should consult the latest version of the review on the online version of The Cochrane Library in order to see the most up to date information.
It was agreed that other roles within the Collaboration may need to undergo name changes if this name change is to be agreed to. Peter requested that the Steering Group should defer discussion of this item until it has been fully discussed between the RGCs and the Co-ordinating Editors during the Dublin Colloquium; Adrian supported this approach, as did Dymphna with respect to Trials Search Co-ordinators. Liz addressed the implications of name changes in terms of salary considerations, as well as the relationship to key roles within other entities such as Fields.
It was agreed to defer this until it had been fully discussed during the Dublin Colloquium. 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.
Lisa 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. Lisa also suggested that Deborah Pentesco-Gilbert be consulted about the proposed ethics statement. Methods Group issues :.
Commercial sponsorship for Methods Groups : Mark chaired the meeting for this item. Jon explained the background and rationale for his proposed revision of the C ochrane Collaboration policy on commercial sponsorship pertaining to the funding of Methods Groups. He had revised the section on Methods Groups in line with the principles that he had previously circulated to the Steering Group. He explained that Methods Groups are not funded per se but that funding is often obtained for the activities of Methods Groups or their members.
After some discussion the Steering Group agreed unanimously that commercial sources of funding to Methods Groups should not be prohibited, and that the proposed revision of the policy be accepted, viz: It was agreed that funding from a commercial source [as defined in the Cochrane Collaboration policy on commercial sponsorship] for the activities of Methods Groups, or of their members, in producing Cochrane reviews of healthcare interventions or tests, or supporting individual Cochrane Review Groups, including peer review, is not permitted.
Methodologists who have personally received remuneration or research funds from a commercial source in the previous five years should ensure that they have no involvement in reviews of interventions or tests in which the commercial source has a vested interest. Mark will revise the policy accordingly and forward it to Jini to include in The Cochrane Manual and notify the Collaboration via the entity mailing lists.
Lisa pointed out that any members of Methods Groups who are authors of Cochrane reviews should declare financial ties with commercial sources: Jon pointed out that this requirement was already Collaboration policy, as a methodologist acting as an author would be subject to the other clauses in the policy. There was also discussion about methodologists with interests in commercial methodological products such as software having potential conflicts when they provide methodological advice to the Collaboration, and it was agreed that a policy of declaring these potential conflicts would be followed.
Nick suggested that this policy be part of the general ethics statement being planned for the Collaboration and The Cochrane Library , and Narelle agreed to take this into account in the work she would be undertaking. Centre issues: The Colloquium Policy Advisory Group should be requested to devise a process for receiving and dealing with invitations to host future Colloquia, in order that these and other bids might be properly assessed.
Action: Lisa, Jordi. Mark pointed out that whilst it is important to keep in mind the impact of a change in policy, the policy should be determined first and then a plan should be formulated to deal with any consequences of that policy. It was agreed that Jordi, as one of the CCSG representatives on the CPAG, should ask the CPAG to revise the Colloquium sponsorship policy to make it more explicit, and should also consider and make recommendations as to how the costs of colloquia to participants might be able to be reduced.
Action: Jordi. His background document was noted with interest. There was general support in principle for adding tags to titles, protocols and reviews to indicate that they are potentially of interest to Fields. Monica noted that the estimate of programmer time cited in the document was incorrect, and that a member of the IMS team would need to spend two to four weeks on the project, which could lead to delays in other projects.
It was agreed that Lorne should liaise with Monica about the timing of the implementation of this proposal, and that this should be done taking current priorities into account. Lorne indicated that no detailed budget had as yet been developed for the project. He was asked to develop such a budget and resubmit the proposal to the Executive. It was suggested that members of the Collaboration should be encouraged to address the symptoms of lack of interaction between CRGs and Fields. Action: Lorne, Monica.
The Directors had recommended that the financial statements of all past years should be made available on the website in the interests of transparency.
Nick explained that discussions had already taken place with the accountants as to the feasibility of this, and Jini was asked to follow it up. It was noted from the table of key dates in that all actions had been completed by their due date so far this year.
0コメント