EBMS Tickets

Please leave the asterisk after Disposition and don't add the text after it. Leave the text after all of the options as it is now.

For the new "Abstain" option, change to:

Abstain (this means you do not feel you can judge the relevance or interest. Please use this option sparingly. Remember we are writing for a wide range of readers so your assessment of potential relevance or interest is important.)

More edits likely to follow, but this will give us something to react to. Thanks!

I have installed the requested changes on EBMS DEV. Please review.

Here are some of my own thoughts on these changes.

1. I'll add my voice to those who are doubtful the changes result in a better form.

2. I removed the code which stripped any final punctuation from the extra text in parentheses, in order to reflect the new text exactly as requested, and removed trailing periods from the other values in the database so they will continue to display as they always have. The result is somewhat awkward, however. My own suggestion for the Abstain option would be to have the extra text for the option say simply say "used when you do not believe you can judge the relevance or interest" and add the rest of the information to the general instructions for the field: "Indicate how the article might affect the summary. Please use the 'Abstain' option sparingly. Remember that we are writing for a wide range of readers, so your assessment of potential relevance or interest is important."

3. It was a surprise to learn in Thursday's meeting that the "Conflict of interest" option in the Reasons for Exclusion field is intended to refer to conflicts of interest which apply to the reviewing board member. I had always assumed that it was to be used for an article whose value was tainted by conflicts of interest on the part of the authors of the article and/or the researchers conducting the trial, which seemed like a valid reason for excluding the article from use in the PDQ summaries. I wonder if any of the board members share my confusion. If I were a board member asked to review an article, and I believed that I was unqualified to review the article because of a conflict of interest which applied to myself with respect to that article, I can see that it might be appropriate for me to abstain from the review. It seems harder to justify my own conflict of interest being used as the basis for actually recommending that the article should not be used by NCI for improving the PDQ summaries, regardless of how much valuable information the article might be judged to contain by other, objective reviewers who are not burdened by any conflicts of interest.

I have done some analysis for this enhancement request and I have concluded that

• the level of effort required would not be significantly affected by the number of sets of values supported

• I can probably get this done as a "3" for the story points (I've already done some of the work)

I've got a preliminary version of this ticket on my own server. Please take a look there. Once I have your decisions on which boards get which dispositions, I'll plug them in here, and once you're happy with them, I'll move the changes to EBMS DEV.

https://ebms.rksystems.com

Here are the options for the Pediatric Board:

Warrants no changes to the summary

Deserves citation in the summary (indicate placement in the summary document)

Merits revision of the text (indicate changes in the summary document)

Deserves citation or merits revision, defer to the Board member listed below (add the member's name in the comment field)

Merits discussion

Merits discussion if others agree

Merits discussion, defer to the Board member listed below (add the member's name in the comment field)

Review dispositions for Pediatric Treatment Board installed on https://ebms.rksystems.com.

The IACT Board is going to keep their current (live) list for now.

SPC has requested these options, which include a question:

Abstain (I don’t feel comfortable making a decision.)

Warrants a citation (I will present the summary at the next meeting)

Merits discussion (Bob – they are wondering if a sublist or drop-down list could be added with 2 options. Is that a possibility or would it be better to break this "merits discussion" option into 2 separate options at the same level?)

          ___Discuss article

          ___Discuss the topic and what summaries need to be updated

Another question: Robin is wondering if the Reject button that appears on the previous page could be deleted from that page? If so, they would add "Reject" as the last option here and the exclusion reasons that appear when it is checked. I'm not sure we want to remove the Reject button and change one Board's page in that way, but I did want to know if it was feasible. Thanks.

1. Why would we want to end some parenthetical values with a period and not others?

2. What we've been discussing so far has been allowing each board to select which of the review disposition values will appear for members of that board. Having a different order of the values per board is a new requirement, and I don't believe we could safely expand the scope in that way in the time remaining.

3. Changing the structure of the list of review dispositions to include nested sub-options is possible but expensive, and would push this ticket into a later release.

4. Removing the Reject button for some boards would be another new feature which would be possible, but not in this release.

In general I would say the reason for channeling the review process through a form with uniform options was to make it possible to apply automated logic to downstream processing and report aggregations, avoiding the sorts of limitations we ran into when (for example) we initially allowed free-form text values in currency fields on the expense reimbursement form instead of constraining the values to decimal numbers. Adding increasingly variety to the review form is moving back in that direction, and you'll want to consider carefully whether you believe that the advantages are compelling enough to justify the costs.

Thanks for your patience as I sorted out the requests and made them uniform. I'm attaching a document that has each Board's requests along with all of the options at the end (just for reference). I hope I got it right this time but please let me know if you have any questions.

New dispositions installed on QA and linked with specific boards.

https://github.com/NCIOCPL/ebms/commit/9a9fa78
https://github.com/NCIOCPL/ebms/commit/cf467cc
https://github.com/NCIOCPL/ebms/commit/84af021
https://github.com/NCIOCPL/ebms/commit/7b4a723

Verified on PROD.