| Issue Number | 323 |
|---|---|
| Summary | [Literature] Changes to List of Exclusion Reasons |
| Created | 2015-09-09 10:06:21 |
| Issue Type | Improvement |
| Submitted By | Juthe, Robin (NIH/NCI) [E] |
| Assigned To | Kline, Bob (NIH/NCI) [C] |
| Status | Closed |
| Resolved | 2015-10-30 11:29:18 |
| Resolution | Fixed |
| Path | /home/bkline/backups/jira/oceebms/issue.169595 |
We would like to make a few changes to the list of exclusion reasons that Board members receive when they reject an article.
1. Please remove the following reasons:
Inappropriate interpretation of subgroup analyses
Inappropriate statistical analysis
Randomized trial with flawed or insufficiently described randomization
process
Unvalidated outcome measure(s) used
2. Please rename the following reason:
Change "Inappropriate study design" to "Inappropriate study design or analyses"
3. If possible, please add a separate comment field that is just
for the exclusion reasons. We find they are using the main comment field
for a variety of purposes, so it would be helpful if there could be a
dedicated comment field for this purpose.
4. Is it necessary to map the old exclusion reasons to the new (for historical/reporting purposes)? If so, all of the reasons that were removed in step 1 can be mapped to the revised reason in step 2.
Thanks.
We'll implement this by adding a new column to the ebms_review_rejection_value table, value_status, and modify the form to exclude values with an inactive status. That way, we'll still have the history of the use of those values from when they were still available.
If we add a second comment field, where should we put it on the form? Any preferences on how the field is labeled or for the wording of the instructions? Do we have tickets for modifying reports to include the new comments?
We discussed this today and decided not to add a separate comment field. So, we only need to worry about items 1, 2, and 4 in the issue description above. Thank you!
Changes implemented on DEV. Because we're using a new column to mark which reasons are available on the forms, we don't have to delete any of the obsolete reasons (or their use in existing reviews), so no mapping (#4 above) is necessary.
Verified on QA.
I can't remember if we updated the reasons on the coversheet as part of this request. If we didn't, we'll need to add a new issue for the next release. Keeping this open until we have an opportunity to print a packet and check the coversheet.
We just confirmed that the coversheet was not updated, so I'll file a separate ticket for that. In the meantime, I've verified the list of exclusion reasons on the website (PROD) and am closing this issue.
Elapsed: 0:00:00.000237