Transcript slides

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. What’s 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
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 !!