For intervention reviews, please allow a choice for the author to choose to deactivate existing RoB assessments and active ROBINS-2 assessment criteria for non-randomised studies.1 vote
As a review author, I want to be able to present complex information in tables and figures. Availability of colour font and fill colours would greatly assist with this. RevMan recognition of symbols pasted from Office documents would also be extremely useful.2 votes
Pros: +1 High value;
Cons: -1 Hard to do – requires agreement on what we want to publish; change to review format; and coordination with publisher.
Recognition of symbols from Word is a separate issue, RevMan 5 does generally allow this, but may not work for some Symbol fonts. We expect RevMan Web to handle pasting from Word very well.
The user should be able to mark a wide table to be printed/shown in landscape when the review is converted to PDF in The Cochrane Library. Changes review structure.7 votes
Agreed by RAC/IKMD. Case number 120610.
Comments: TL: I like this idea.
RM: Perhaps, but PDF generation code should be able to detect this automatically.
TRAINING: See comments above – depends on accurately predicting publication format.
Bernd: RevMan is our interface to the authors and should be as good as possible. Currently authors do not have adequate control of how their review will look like (prepub pdf helps somewhat but breaks down with larger reviews). The current table functionality drives authors crazy and the result is a very unprofessional look of tables in the Cochrane Library pdf-version even after CRG copy editing because we don’t have control as well.
It would be good if it brought up a warning when running the Validation report. See case 71560.4 votes
Agreed by RAC/IKMD. Case number 119534.Comments: TL: Agree. Rasmus: Only if we have a ‘not applicable’ option, see 71560. If this is selected there should not be a warining. Training: Agree – authors often leave blank rows when they shouldn’t, so a warning would be helpful to get this addressed before it gets to editing. Agree that the ‘not applicable’ option would identify those authors doing this on purpose. Bernd: As this is easily visible in the risk of bias figures presubmission checklists should cover for that.
In order to assist with moving search strategies stored in additional tables to appendices.3 votes
Agreed by RAC/IKMD. Case number 26759.Comments: Bernd: Would add functionality since currently you just can move an additional table to the SoF tables (which does not seem to make too much sense). Sheila: In the days before appendices were available TSCs put long search strategies into Additional tables – now that appendices are available it would be great to be able to move these to the appendices
Currently achieved by a combination of 'Unclear' judgement and leaving the description field empty. Changes review structure. See case 122030, case 119534, case 59251.5 votes
Agreed by RAC/IKMD. Case number 71560.Comments: TL: See submission from BMG in relation to ROB.TRAINING: Yes please! But of course to be considered in context of bigger update to RoB.
- Don't see your idea?