Which of the Following Is True About Institutional Review Boards (Irbs)?
Chest. 2015 Nov; 148(5): 1148–1155.
Institutional Review Boards
Purpose and Challenges
Received 2015 Mar 23; Accepted 2015 April xxx.
Abstruse
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human enquiry participants through accelerate and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codification in United states of america regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the enquiry landscape has grown and evolved, equally has the organization of IRB review and oversight. Testify of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some mutter that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear evidence of effectiveness at protecting man subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the electric current IRB system, and many culling models are currently beingness tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide adequate and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future inquiry.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or equivalent bodies provide a core protection for human participants in biomedical and behavioral inquiry in the United States and > lxxx other countries around the earth. i IRBs are charged with providing an independent evaluation that proposed research is ethically adequate, checking clinical investigators' potential biases, and evaluating compliance with regulations and laws designed to protect human being subjects.
Independent review of clinical inquiry by an IRB is required for US studies funded past the Department of Wellness and Human Services (DHHS) and other US federal agencies, likewise as for research testing interventions—such equally drugs, biologics, and devices—that are under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Tabular array i 2,3 ). US research institutions tin can and ofttimes do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their human subjects research. Research conducted outside of the United states of america but funded by the US government is subject to the aforementioned US federal regulations and and then requires IRB review or equivalent protections. 4 Research conducted outside of the United States, not under an investigational new drug that submits data to the FDA for a new drug or biologic license awarding, must comply with Good Clinical Do guidelines, which include review and approval past an independent review committee and informed consent. v Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions around the world too require review by an independent research ethics committee or IRB. 6 Regulatory bodies in the European Union, Japan, U.s.a., Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries, among others, follow Good Clinical Practice guidelines such every bit those delineated by the International Conference on Harmonisation, which require approval by an independent ethics commission or IRB. 7 IRBs or research ideals committees, composed of a grouping of people independent of the specific research, review proposed inquiry plans and related documents before a study can begin and then periodically (usually annually) for the study duration. The goal of IRB review is to assure that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects will be fairly protected in the pursuit of the proposed enquiry report. To be ethically acceptable and comply with regulatory requirements, the IRB determines that risks to subjects are minimized and reasonable in relation to the importance of the knowledge the study is expected to produce, that the process and outcomes of subject selection are fair (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that there are acceptable plans for obtaining informed consent.
Tabular array 1 ]
Selected United states Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)
| Regulation | Requirements |
| Membership (45CFR.46 107; 21CFR.56.107) | At to the lowest degree 5 members of varying backgrounds, both sexes, and > 1 profession |
| At least 1 scientific member, 1 nonscientific member, and 1 unaffiliated member | |
| Members sufficiently qualified through various feel and expertise to safeguard subjects' rights and welfare and to evaluate inquiry acceptability related to laws, regulations, institutional commitments, and professional person standards | |
| At least ane fellow member knowledgeable about whatsoever regularly researched vulnerable groups | |
| Members report and recusal for conflicts of interest | |
| Advertisement hoc experts every bit needed | |
| Functions/operations (45CFR.46 108; 21CFR.56.108) | Follow written procedures for initial and continuing review and for whatsoever changes and amendments |
| Written procedures for reporting unanticipated bug, risks, and noncompliance | |
| Quorum of bulk at convened meetings. Approving requires majority vote | |
| Review (45CFR.46 109; 21CFR.56.109) | Authority to approve, require modifications of, or disapprove research |
| Require informed consent and documentation (or approve a waiver 1 ) | |
| Notify investigators in writing | |
| At least annual standing review | |
| Criteria for approval (45CFR.46 111; 21CFR.56.111) | IRB should determine that risks are minimized; risks are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, and the importance of the expected cognition; subject selection is equitable and attention to vulnerable populations; informed consent will be sought and documented; adequate provisions for monitoring; adequate provisions to protect confidentiality; additional safeguards for subjects vulnerable to coercion or undue influence |
| Authority (45CFR.46. 113; 21CFR.56.113) | Institutional officials cannot approve enquiry that is disapproved by the IRB (45CFR.46 only) |
| The IRB can append or terminate research for serious harm or noncompliance | |
| Records (45CFR.46. 115, 21CFR.56.115) | Records of research proposals, meetings, actions, correspondence, members, and so forth |
History of IRBs in the United States
Recognizing that review by impartial others might mitigate alien differences in the ethical responsibilities of physician-investigators to research subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, help to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, James Shannon, Dr., Managing director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in 1965 proposed that all NIH research involving human subjects be evaluated past an impartial panel of peers to ensure its upstanding integrity. His idea derived, at least in role, from a model that began at the NIH Clinical Center when it opened in 1953, which was a model of group peer review for research involving healthy volunteers. one In 1966, Usa Public Wellness Service policy requirements for ethical review, which were expanded to all Department of Health Pedagogy and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) enquiry by 1971, were not well enforced. i Regulations for the protection of human subjects for DHHS, published in 1974 (45CFR.46), included a requirement for grouping ethics review and the term "institutional review board" was introduced. The Globe Medical Association besides introduced review by an independent committee for oversight of science and ideals into the 1975 revision of the Announcement of Helsinki. 8 The National Commission for the Protection of Homo Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established past the US Congress subsequently revelations of the U.s.a. Public Health Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Report which explicated ethical principles underlying the conduct of human subjects inquiry. 9 The Commission's contributions, including integration of the Belmont principles, were incorporated into updated The states regulations in 1981. The 1981 DHHS regulations were subsequently adopted by xvi federal agencies (not including the FDA) in 1991 as the Common Rule. The FDA required an IRB kickoff in 1981 (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, part 56), although some investigators funded past pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. 10 The most all-encompassing proposed changes to the Mutual Dominion since 1991 were issued by the DHHS in an Advance Find of Proposed Rule Making in 2011 in an effort to enhance protections and efficiency. xi,12 Public comments were solicited and a Discover of Proposed Rulemaking is under development, but as of this writing has not been published (Fig 1).
Timeline of regulations and guidance regarding IRB review. ANPRM = Advance Observe of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = United states of america Department of Wellness, Education, and Welfare; DHHS = Department of Health and Man Services; FDA = US Food and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Wellness.
United states of america regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart E and 21CFR.56.106 crave IRBs to exist registered with the DHHS Part of Human Research Protections (OHRP), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Common Dominion. Research institutions that receive DHHS funds file with OHRP an assurance that the institution will comply with federal regulations, called a Federal Wide Assurance. thirteen Each assurance has to include at to the lowest degree i internal or external IRB registered with OHRP. The FDA requires registration of IRBs but does not require prospective assurances of compliance; sponsors and investigators include evidence of IRB review when they submit data to the FDA.
Changes to Inquiry
At the fourth dimension that IRBs were codified in regulation, single-site clinical research was the predominant paradigm. Advances in knowledge, technology, and resource over the subsequent decades have significantly changed the face up of research. Growth in public and individual spending 14,xv equally well as evolving scientific opportunities accept created novel challenges for IRBs. The majority of clinical trials are now multisite, and some include > 100 sites, often with sites in multiple countries. sixteen In addition to multicenter and multinational inquiry, IRBs review, for example, proposals for enquiry with stored samples and data, cell-based and stem cell therapies, emergency enquiry, social science research, and community-based research. IRBs operate nether the same regulatory structure and use similar procedures despite a broad range of types of enquiry posing disparate risks to subjects' rights and welfare. Furthermore, the complexity of oversight has changed with the evolution of new entities involved in clinical research, such every bit contract research organizations, information and safety monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, amidst others.
Changes to IRBs
Concurrently, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs take continued to increase. Nigh inquiry institutions, universities, and health-care facilities have at to the lowest degree one IRB, and the majority has more than than one. 17 In addition, there are a number of independent or commercial IRBs. 18 Increasingly, IRBs are tasked with responsibilities beyond those required by federal regulation, including, for case, review of conflicts of involvement, compliance with privacy regulations, training of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, among others. IRBs practice indeed have responsibility for reviewing the science to assess the soundness of the pattern and the risks and benefits of the proposed enquiry, however, many institutions take a separate scientific review procedure that precedes and complements IRB review.
Dissatisfaction and business about what is perceived as an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has also mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB organisation as dysfunctional and "more than concerned with protecting the institution than research participants." nineteen Some claim that IRBs are overburdened 20 and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about burden: excessive paperwork, inflexible estimation of regulatory requirements, attention to inconsequential details, and "mission creep"—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to take little to do with protection of research participants. 21 Fearfulness of regulatory admonition has fueled a focus on compliance with regulations. 22 Some perceive the excessive or "hyper" regulation equally seriously affecting or stifling research productivity and adding price without adding meaningful protections for participants. 23,24 Clinical investigators mutter that the IRB review process is inefficient and delays their research for what seem like minor modifications. 25 The public hears about issues and fears that research might be unsafe and existing protections ineffective or inadequate. 26,27
Charles McCarthy, the first director of the US Office for Protection from Research Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, "[IRBs] accept become more than insightful and sophisticated…Only unless [the Human being Research Protection System] is considered to be an evolving and expanding mechanism, adapting to the bug of each period of history, it is in danger of condign fossilized and ineffective." 28 Flexibility and adjustability are important characteristics not usually attributed to IRBs. The challenge is how to evolve, expand, and adjust IRBs to the current exigencies of research in a rational and meaningful style. Every bit noted by Cohen and Lynch, 29 the arrangement is "ripe for a major course correction."
Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges
Recognition of the need for a robust system of protecting human being research subjects within the changing research landscape has led to various proposals for reform and suggestions for alternative models. 30‐35
Reform proposals offer changes to accost some of the various factors that are problematic for IRBs and for those who use them. Yet, reform efforts accept been somewhat paralyzed past the tension betwixt those who discover the current system inadequate and those who find it likewise overreaching. 36,37 Nonetheless, many grant that multiple reviews for a single report are duplicative, lead to significant delays in research without calculation meaningful protections, and can effect in inconsistencies that bias the scientific discipline. 38,39 Boosted reasons for considering reform of the current oversight organisation include inherent conflicts of interest, inadequate resources, the emergence of new research methodologies, and insufficient expertise of members, among others. 40 IRBs too grapple with how to respond to evolving research methods, and high profile cases in which regulators disagree with or disapprove of IRB decisions can fuel uncertainty and anxiety. 41,42
Various systems of pre-IRB review accept gained traction as a manner to ameliorate IRB efficiency: Major issues and gaps can be identified and corrected through prereview before an IRB sees the proposal. Institutions are also adopting a framework that more explicitly recognizes the essential roles of the institution, investigators, and research teams in addition to IRBs in protecting man subjects. 43 Several alternatives to the traditional model of single IRB review or review at each site of a multisite written report have been adult and tried (Table 2). 44‐53 Proposed revisions to the Common Dominion include a recommendation for a single IRB of record for domestic multisite trials. nine More recently, the NIH called for comments on a typhoon proposal for a single IRB review for NIH-funded multisite trials. 54 NIH is also currently funding several empirical studies of central IRBs with the goal of informing policy evolution relevant to central IRBs. 55 Despite these significant efforts, many challenges remain in changing the process of IRB review, including questions of liability, price structures, and incentives, and uncertainty about the relative merits of proposed models. 56
TABLE 2 ]
Alternative Models for IRB Review
| Type | Explanation | Examples |
| Local IRB review | Single-site study or review at each site for single site or multisite studies | Most enquiry institutions have ≥ 1 IRB at the site that review research conducted at that site. |
| Shared IRB review | ||
| Reliance | An institution formally "relies" on the IRB of another institution for review of a particular study or set of studies. | Increasingly ≥ 1 site partner with another IRB through a reliance agreement. See, for example NIAID, CHOP, and others. |
| Shared review | Concurrent regional or central and local review | Indian Health Service |
| Centralized review | ||
| Central IRB | Central IRB established to review all studies of a type, each site accepts the primal review | National Cancer Establish's Central IRB (2 adult, i pediatric, ane cancer prevention and command) |
| American Academy of Family Physicians National Inquiry Network IRB | ||
| Veterans Administration fundamental IRB | ||
| A group of institutions class an alliance and create a new central IRB to serve as IRB for group. | Biomedical Research Brotherhood of New York (BRANY) | |
| OR | The IRB at Massachusetts General Hospital is designated as IRB of record for all NINDS-funded NeuroNext institutions. | |
| An existing IRB is designated as the central IRB for all sites of a network. | ||
| One of the existing NIH intramural IRBs is designated as the key PHERRB for public health emergencies. | ||
| Independent/commercial | A freestanding IRB (not part of an establishment) is employed to review single or multiple site studies. | Western IRB, Chesapeake IRB, many others |
| Federated model | Allows sites to cull amid multiple options including reliance, shared review, local review, or facilitated review. All options include a delivery to sharing IRB submissions and determinations among study sites. | National Children's Written report (NICHD) |
Demand for Evidence
Reform proposals oft recognize the need for information almost what works and for creative and testable ways of achieving the appropriate combination of protecting the rights and welfare of participants with meaningful and efficient IRB review that promotes high quality, relevant, and timely inquiry. Evidence about how well IRBs are functioning, how constructive they are, and how they could be more than efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies describe IRB construction, procedure, or outcomes and testify that IRB judgments are inconsistent, as is their application of a standard gear up of regulations. 58,59 Practices and decisions vary between and within IRBs frequently without justification, including determinations well-nigh risk level, inclusion criteria, and the appropriateness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55,60 Despite complaints about inconsistency, independence and local evaluation brand some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, it is difficult to observe a study or to place metrics able to measure how constructive IRBs are at ensuring the upstanding acquit of research or protecting research participants. 61 Improving effectiveness requires clear and measurable goals for IRBs and ethical justification for regulatory requirements. 62
Many of these factors converge for critics of the IRB system: growing requirements and costs, 63,64 bureaucratic burden, vague goals, and limited prove of effectiveness.
"The available evidence indicates that there are substantial direct and indirect costs associated with IRB oversight of research. IRBs too operate inconsistently and inefficiently, and focus their attending on paperwork and bureaucratic compliance. Despite their prevalence, there is no empirical evidence that IRB oversight has any benefit whatsoever—let alone benefit that exceeds the price." 65
Both normative analysis and empirical evidence are needed to empathise how to amend the electric current arrangement and optimize protections for contemporary inquiry. If the goal is primarily to protect research participants from risk, for example, and then more than analysis of what risks count and more empirical prove virtually research risks would provide management for how we are doing and where the gaps are. Every bit Taylor 66 notes, "whether and how to protect is inescapably normative and inescapably empirical." In its 2011 written report Moral Scientific discipline: Protecting Homo Participants in Human Subjects Research, the President's Commission recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of man subjects research "develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of human subject protections and expand support for research related to the ethical and social considerations of human subject protections." 67
Centralizing IRB Review
Primarily driven by concerns about redundant review, brunt, and filibuster, much attention has been given to the idea of single or fundamental IRB review for multisite studies as an alternative to local IRB review at each site. Multiple reviews also have the possibility of jeopardizing the scientific discipline past introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted by federal regulations 68 to use arrangements that centralize or share reviews, nonetheless relatively few employ these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations take recommended unmarried or primal review for multisite studies. ten,28‐31,35 Lingering resistance to adopting primal or single review for multisite trials appears to exist based on concerns about the importance of local context, local accountability and liability, discomfort with relinquishing control over the review, uncertainty about the quality of review by other IRBs, and logistical concerns such as toll-sharing. 30,54 There is a paucity of data evaluating how unmarried or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resource apply, or efficiency.
Conclusions
IRBs have an important role in protecting human being enquiry participants from possible harm and exploitation. Independent review by an IRB or equivalent is an important part of a system of protections aiming to ensure that upstanding principles are followed and that acceptable and appropriate safeguards are in place to protect subjects' rights and welfare while they contribute to ethically and scientifically rigorous research. Over the four decades since IRBs were codification into regulations, IRB review and oversight has developed and matured as part of a robust arrangement that provides "substantial protections for the wellness, rights, and welfare of enquiry subjects." 69 All the same, during that aforementioned menses, research methods and opportunities have evolved, the domains of oversight have expanded, and the research enterprise has grown and diversified. The rules, norms, procedures, and even articulation of the goals of IRB review have not kept pace. Although ethical principles underlying research with homo subjects have not changed, their implementation and actualization requires refinement and adaptation to respond to changing scientific and social contexts. Data, creativity, regulatory flexibility, and continued dialogue are needed to optimize the implementation of principles and to assist shape the hereafter construction, organization, processes, and outcomes of review and oversight by IRBs and related players. These efforts will support progress in clinical research, public trust in the enterprise, and protection of the participants that make enquiry possible.
Acknowledgments
Conflict of involvement: None declared.
Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no role in the design of the written report, the drove and analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript.
Other contributions: Views expressed are the author'southward and do not necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Wellness and Homo Services. The writer is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, Physician, PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.
ABBREVIATIONS
| DHHS | Department of Health and Human Services |
| FDA | US Food and Drug Administration |
| IRB | institutional review board |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| OHRP | Role of Man Enquiry Protections |
Footnotes
FUNDING/SUPPORT: Piece of work on this article was supported by the Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Enquiry Programme.
Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians. Run into online for more details.
References
1. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel Due east, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Printing; 2008:541-550. [Google Scholar]
4. US Code of Federal Regulations. Championship 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed]
5. United states Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for industry and FDA staff FDA acceptance of foreign clinical studies non conducted under an IND frequently asked questions.U.s.a. Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed Apr 12, 2015.
6. The states Department of Wellness and Human Services. Part of Man Research Protections (OHRP). International compilation of human subjects standards. US Section of Wellness and Man Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March 1, 2015.
8. Riis P. Letter from...Denmark. Planning of scientific-ethical committees. BMJ. 1977;ii(6080):173-174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Enquiry. Washington, DC: Department of Health Educational activity and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication OS 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board part. In: Emanuel Due east, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ideals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:552-559. [Google Scholar]
11. Office of Human Subjects Protection. Avant-garde find of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Common Rule. United states of america Section of Wellness and Human being Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015.
12. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. Northward Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Office of Human Research Protections. IRBs and assurances. United states of america Department of Wellness and Man Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html. Accessed February two, 2015.
14. Office of Budget: appropriations history past institute/center (1938 to present). National Institutes of Health, Function of Upkeep website. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html. Accessed March three, 2015.
xvi. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are fundamental institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Human being Research Protection Program Functioning. Washington, DC: Clan for the Accreditation of Human Enquiry Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar]
19. Fost N, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of homo subjects research. JAMA. 2007;298(eighteen):2196-2198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's dorsum: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(2):152-157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Gunsalus CK, Bruner EM, Burbules NC, et al. Mission pitter-patter in the IRB world. Science. 2006;312(5779):1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Weil C, Rooney L, McNeilly P, Cooper K, Borror K, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight letters: an update. IRB. 2010;32(2):1-vi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Infectious Diseases Order of America. Grinding to a halt: the furnishings of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):328-335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Silberman Thousand, Kahn KL. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the show and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(iv):599-627. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Whitney SN, Alcser M, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Master investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;v(2):68-72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lemonick M, Goldstein A, Park A. Human guinea pigs. Time. April 22, 2002. [Google Scholar]
27. Gilbert South. Trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(2):xiv-eighteen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel Eastward, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ideals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:550. [Google Scholar]
29. Cohen IG, Lynch HF, eds. Introduction. Man Subjects Enquiry Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:2. [Google Scholar]
30. Association of American Medical Colleges.Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2005. [Google Scholar]
31. Summary of the 2006 National Briefing on Alternative IRB Models: optimizing human discipline protection. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconf06rpt.pdf. November 2006. Accessed January 5, 2015.
32. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Centre, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group'south report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Federman D, Hanna K, Rodriguez L, eds. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS. Research ethics. To protect man subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science. 2012;335(6076):1576-1577. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Wood A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ. Regional ethics organizations for protection of human research participants. Nat Med. 2004;10(12):1283-1288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Kim S, Ubel P, DeVries R. Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature. 2009;457(29):534-535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Check DK, Weinfurt KP, Dombeck CB, Kramer JM, Flynn KE. Use of cardinal institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;10(4):560-567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Ledford H. Homo-subjects inquiry: trial and error. Nature. 2007;448(7153):530-532. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Menikoff J. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. Northward Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1591-1593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
forty. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human being participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):282-291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Wilfond BS, Magnus D, Antommaria AH, et al. The OHRP and SUPPORT. North Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):e36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Fanaroff JM. Ethical support for surfactant, positive force per unit area, and oxygenation randomized trial (SUPPORT). J Pediatr. 2013;163(five):1498-1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Speers M. Evaluating the effectiveness of institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Hunker R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ideals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:560-568. [Google Scholar]
44. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A primal institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(xviii):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. National Cancer Institute Key IRB Initiative. National Cancer Institute website. https://ncicirb.org/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
46. Graham DG, Spano MS, Manning B. The IRB challenge for practice-based inquiry: strategies of the American Academy of Family unit Physicians National Inquiry Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Lath Fam Med. 2007;20(two):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Part of Research and Development. VA central institutional review lath (IRB). Us Section of Veterans Affairs website. http://www.research.va.gov/programs/pride/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
48. BRANY institutional review board services. Biomedical Research Brotherhood of New York (BRANY) website. http://www.branyirb.com. Accessed Feb 3, 2015.
49. Kaufmann P, O'Rourke PP. Central institutional review lath review for an academic trial network. Acad Med. 2015;xc(3):321-323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Slutsman J, Hirschfeld S. A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: a report on the National Children's Report federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(6):1-half-dozen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Request for comments on the draft NIH policy on the utilise of a single institutional review board for multi-site inquiry. National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/observe-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html. Published December three, 2014. Accessed March two, 2015.
56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the U.s.a.. PLoS 1. 2013;8(i):e54999. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected function of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ideals. 2008;9:6. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we yet need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):3-xix. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Arnold R, et al. How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Acad Med. 2012;87(7):969-974. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric inquiry? JAMA. 2004;291(iv):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human enquiry participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Presidential Commission for the Report of Bioethical Problems. Further assay and recommendations: recommendation 5. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015.
63. Wagner T, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler J, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Lath. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):662-666. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Sugarman J, Getz K, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ideals. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1825-1827. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Hyman D. Institutional review boards: is this the least worst we can do? Northwestern University Police Review. 2007;101(ii):749-774. [Google Scholar]
66. Taylor P. Introduction to part 2—protection of vulnerable populations. In: Cohen G, Lynch H, eds. Human Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:63. [Google Scholar]
68. Usa Lawmaking of Federal Regulations at 45CFR.46 and 21CFR56.
Articles from Breast are provided here courtesy of American College of Chest Physicians
washingtonshmisting.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631034/
0 Response to "Which of the Following Is True About Institutional Review Boards (Irbs)?"
Post a Comment