Difference between revisions of "Review Process"

From QIBA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Criteria for publishing Clinically Confirmed draft)
 
(30 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
The same review and approval process occurs prior to releasing a Public Comment Draft, a Reviewed Draft, or a Tested Draft.  Just the criteria change.  
+
Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Biomarker Committee and Coordinating Committee at [[QIBA Profile Stages|each Stage]]:
 +
* The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria differ]]'''
 +
* The '''[[Public Comment Process|Public Comment Review]]''' is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the Committee.
  
Remember, this is the QA point.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  '''It does have to be good'''.
 
  
==Review and Approval==
+
Remember, this is the QA point for your work.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  '''It does have to be good'''.
* Judge the document to be fit for the next phase (Technical Committee''')
+
** Schedule review meeting(s) as needed with open committee
+
** Submit document 1 week before review meeting
+
** Line-by-line review/walkthrough led by editor
+
** Resolve questions/comments/clarifications
+
** Vote (for Public Comment) or [[Balloting Process|Ballot]] (for Reviewed or Tested) to approve the document as fit for the next phase.
+
  
===Criteria for publishing Public Comment draft===
+
==Review (Biomarker Committee)==
* All open issues have been clearly listed
+
The following review process is strongly recommended, but Biomarker Committees are not required to follow this specific process.
* Some groundwork projects may be underway
+
* ''Editor'' of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
* Candidate resolutions have been selected for most/all issues and drafted into the Profile
+
* ''Biomarker Committee'' assigns/'''recruits reviewers''' for Profile sections
* All major mechanisms and profile details are mostly clear/complete enough to implement
+
** Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
** Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
** It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps)
 +
* ''Reviewers'' check the Profile meets the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]''' as well as '''[[How_to_Write_a_Profile#Follow_Profile_Writing_Guidelines|guidelines for clarity/quality]]'''
 +
** A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
 +
* ''Reviewers'' '''report back''' to the Biomarker Committee
 +
* ''Authors and Biomarker Committee'' resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
 +
* ''Co-chair'' accepts a motion to send the document to ballot
  
===Criteria for publishing Reviewed draft===
+
==Approve (Biomarker Committee)==
* All open issues have been resolved
+
The main purpose of '''Biomarker Committee''' approval is to '''confirm that all the detailed contents are correct and the profile meets the criteria''' for the stage.
* Few, if any, groundwork projects remain active
+
* All major mechanisms and profile details are clear/complete enough to implement
+
* All major mechanisms have been tested in one or more groundwork or referenced studies (although reasonable deviations from Profile details may exist)
+
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* Compliance requirements are sufficient to accomplish the goal of the profile
+
  
===Criteria for publishing Technically Confirmed draft===
+
* ''Biomarker Committee'' submits to RSNA Staff the '''profile document''' and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the '''[[QIBA Profile Stages|supporting document for that stage]]'''
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested as written
+
* ''RSNA Staff'' circulates a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' asking Biomarker Committee members to approve that the content of the '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
* Groundwork projects are complete
+
** The profile document and supporting document are attached to or linked from the ballot
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been implemented by at least one system/site.
+
** The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text
* The claim of the profile has been accomplished in "controlled" conditions
+
** In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting.
 +
* ''Biomarker Committee members'' review the profile and supporting document and confirm '''Profile meets the [[QIBA Profile Stages|criteria for the stage]]'''
 +
* ''Biomarker Committee'' reviews and ratifies the '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|Ballot]]''' results
 +
* ''RSNA Staff'' forwards the minutes (which contains ballot details and highlights any contentious ballot comment resolutions) to the relevant Coordinating Committee Leadership with a request for approval to publish
  
===Criteria for publishing Clinically Confirmed draft===
+
==Approve (Coordinating Committee)==
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been tested in the field as written
+
The main purpose of '''Coordinating Committee''' approval is oversight to '''confirm that the profile is hitting the intended mark''' (e.g. the claim is on target) and to bring fresh eyes to the overall document (it is understandable, unburdensome and likely to be effective).
* All major mechanisms and profile details have been "widely" implemented by multiple systems/sites
+
 
* It is clear what is required for a system/organization to claim compliance with the Profile
+
* ''Coordinating Committee Leadership'' asks members to approve the Profile for publication.
* The claim of the profile has been accomplished in clinical conditions
+
** ''Leadership'' typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee '''[[Committee_Procedures#Voting|Vote]]'''
 +
*** Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
 +
** ''Leadership'' may choose to do a '''[[Committee_Procedures#Email_Ballot|ballot]]''' instead if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting

Latest revision as of 23:49, 10 August 2020

Profiles are reviewed/approved by their parent Biomarker Committee and Coordinating Committee at each Stage:

  • The review/approval steps are the same for each stage, but the criteria differ
  • The Public Comment Review is another process that specifically covers soliciting and resolving comments that can come from beyond the Committee.


Remember, this is the QA point for your work. It doesn't have to be perfect. It does have to be good.

Review (Biomarker Committee)

The following review process is strongly recommended, but Biomarker Committees are not required to follow this specific process.

  • Editor of the Profile requests content review once they feel work on the current stage has been completed
  • Biomarker Committee assigns/recruits reviewers for Profile sections
    • Ideally each section should be covered by more than one reviewer
    • Reviewing assignments can be divided up any way that is convenient
    • It is helpful to have some reviewers read through the profile in its entirety (finds inconsistencies/gaps)
  • Reviewers check the Profile meets the criteria for the stage as well as guidelines for clarity/quality
    • A two week window for the reviewers to do their work is suggested
  • Reviewers report back to the Biomarker Committee
  • Authors and Biomarker Committee resolve any questions/comments/clarifications raised by the reviewers
  • Co-chair accepts a motion to send the document to ballot

Approve (Biomarker Committee)

The main purpose of Biomarker Committee approval is to confirm that all the detailed contents are correct and the profile meets the criteria for the stage.

  • Biomarker Committee submits to RSNA Staff the profile document and, if approving for a stage after Public Comment, the supporting document for that stage
  • RSNA Staff circulates a Ballot asking Biomarker Committee members to approve that the content of the Profile meets the criteria for the stage
    • The profile document and supporting document are attached to or linked from the ballot
    • The ballot period should be 2-5 weeks (typically 30 days) to allow time to review the full Profile text
    • In the case of approving to publish for Public Comment, it is acceptable to instead hold a vote during a committee meeting.
  • Biomarker Committee members review the profile and supporting document and confirm Profile meets the criteria for the stage
  • Biomarker Committee reviews and ratifies the Ballot results
  • RSNA Staff forwards the minutes (which contains ballot details and highlights any contentious ballot comment resolutions) to the relevant Coordinating Committee Leadership with a request for approval to publish

Approve (Coordinating Committee)

The main purpose of Coordinating Committee approval is oversight to confirm that the profile is hitting the intended mark (e.g. the claim is on target) and to bring fresh eyes to the overall document (it is understandable, unburdensome and likely to be effective).

  • Coordinating Committee Leadership asks members to approve the Profile for publication.
    • Leadership typically puts the topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for an in-committee Vote
      • Since there is a lengthy document involved, the agenda notification should be circulated at least 2 weeks before the meeting.
    • Leadership may choose to do a ballot instead if that would be faster than waiting for the next meeting