Objectives:

To increase the output and improve the quality of reviews from the Consumers and Communication Collaborative Review Group (hereafter the Group).

Methods:

In June 2000, an increased level of funding was obtained for the re-establishment of the geographical base of the Group within a university setting, in response to a proposal to the Victorian Department of Human Services, Australia. The funding body targeted editorial functions and increased output as the principal basis of ongoing funding. Following appointment and training of three new staff, activities to achieve these objectives were:

Administrative: an initial review and update of all administrative procedures and Group documents; all databases checked for accuracy and consistency of information.

Quality Improvement: revision and expansion of title registration process, seeking additional information on proposed review at pre-registration stage; all new Australian team leaders trained at Australasian Cochrane Centre; a glossary of studies (all designs) developed, with diagrammatic and referenced study examples; coding scheme developed to categorise trials in Register by scope, interventions and outcomes; revision of classification of outcomes of interest to the Group.

Increasing Production of Reviews: all existing and self-nominated reviewers in membership database contacted, seeking status of interest and activities; analysis of total membership conducted, by country and topic interest; limited number of bursaries made available for protocol development by Australian reviewers; 'orphan' topics advertised in newsletter.

Editorial Support and Functions: two new editors, new comments and criticisms editor, and statistics adviser appointed; and regular editorial meetings held. A second stage of examining editorial processes commenced in Jan 02, with a revision of all editorial and referee guides and checklists, the clarification of communication paths, and strategies identified to increase the size, and breadth of expertise, of referee base.

Publicity and Accountability: first annual report prepared and widely disseminated - in Australia, at Lyon Colloquium, and to Group's members; newsletter revamped and produced regularly; detailed six-monthly reports provided to funding body.

Results:

The combination of all these activities has led to a marked increase in registered titles and titles in development from 4 pre-move (May 00) to 30 since move to the new base (Dec 01), with increase in Australian lead reviewers from 1 to 8 (representing 9 teams). Intensive and early input to review development has improved quality of proposals, as evidenced by greater precision of topic formulation, and demonstrated familiarity with systematic review methods.

Conclusions:

Efforts to improve the efficiency and quality of editorial processes, with an initial focus on supporting local reviewers, have shown benefits in terms of new reviews, both locally and internationally. We hope to report on comparable review publication statistics in future years. Ongoing quality and productivity measures will be: 1) continuing the cycle of improvements to editorial functions and communication processes; and 2) establishing a process to set broad priorities for new titles, and identifying suitable funding sources to assist review production, and 3) developing a post-publication evaluation procedure.