MeLLow Group Discussion (1)

1
MeLLow Group Discussion (1)

• Memorable aspects of the workshop
• 14 - Need for gold standard for systematic
  reviews studies - Different conduct of Reviews
  gives same result (adherence to protocol),
  Description of meta-analysis work smarter
• 9 - Data quality 3 months to discover !
• 5 - Text mining
• 4 - Consensus of immaturity of field - Lots going
  on but too little ... Interactive sessions
  Industry and academia being present made each
  other think reality check. Whats useful
• 4 - Difficulty of establishing accuracy
• 3 - Interval vs point (obsession)
• 2 - More qualitative analysis needed
• 1 - Transfer of methods etc. from other domains
  eg medical
• 1 - Factors not affecting project success
  illuminating

2
MeLLow Group Discussion (2)

• Challenges
• Standardisation / definitions (consensus)
  process, decision, enforcement
• Getting visibility of inconclusive (negative)
  results
• Measure and report data quality / accuracy
  successful (complete) and failed (aborted)
  projects / bids
• Getting sufficient good quality / useful data
• Academia and industry needs
• Capturing all appropriate factors (noise)
• What next?
• Registering work primary surveys
• Create working group to work on standardisation
• Agree, Publish, Enforce a standard / guideline
  / protocol / best practice for primary surveys
  systematic reviews meta-analysis educate next
  generation
• Agree terminology (use applicable other domains
  medical and ...)
• Dissemination, workshop, website, letters to
  editors, journal, special issue, repository /
  forum inconclusive results
• Close the gap between academia and industry
• Event to capture none differences they are
  important !!