Which of the Following Comes Closest to the Purpose of an Institutional Review Board
Chest. 2015 Nov; 148(5): 1148–1155.
Institutional Review Boards
Purpose and Challenges
Received 2015 Mar 23; Accustomed 2015 Apr 30.
Abstract
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or enquiry ethics committees provide a core protection for human being research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the upstanding acceptability of proposals for homo research. IRBs were codified in U.s.a. regulation just over 3 decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the enquiry mural has grown and evolved, as has the system of IRB review and oversight. Evidence of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is fourth dimension-consuming and burdensome without clear prove of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals take been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more than attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the Us federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and exam 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 enquiry.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or equivalent bodies provide a core protection for human participants in biomedical and behavioral research in the United States and > eighty other countries around the earth. 1 IRBs are charged with providing an independent evaluation that proposed research is ethically acceptable, checking clinical investigators' potential biases, and evaluating compliance with regulations and laws designed to protect human being subjects.
Contained review of clinical research by an IRB is required for United states studies funded by the Department of Wellness and Human being Services (DHHS) and other Us federal agencies, likewise as for research testing interventions—such as drugs, biologics, and devices—that are under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Table 1 ii,iii ). Usa research institutions can and oftentimes do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their man subjects inquiry. Inquiry conducted outside of the United States but funded past the U.s.a. authorities is subject to the same Usa federal regulations and then requires IRB review or equivalent protections. 4 Inquiry conducted outside of the U.s., 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 Practice guidelines, which include review and approving by an independent review commission and informed consent. v Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions around the earth besides crave review by an independent inquiry ethics committee or IRB. 6 Regulatory bodies in the Eu, Nippon, United States, Canada, Commonwealth of australia, and Nordic countries, amidst others, follow Good Clinical Practise guidelines such as those delineated past the International Briefing on Harmonisation, which crave approval by an independent ethics committee or IRB. seven IRBs or inquiry ideals committees, composed of a group of people contained of the specific research, review proposed research plans and related documents before a study can begin and so periodically (normally annually) for the study duration. The goal of IRB review is to assure that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects will be adequately protected in the pursuit of the proposed enquiry study. To exist ethically adequate 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 written report is expected to produce, that the process and outcomes of subject choice are fair (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that at that place are adequate plans for obtaining informed consent.
TABLE one ]
Selected U.s.a. Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)
| Regulation | Requirements |
| Membership (45CFR.46 107; 21CFR.56.107) | At least five members of varying backgrounds, both sexes, and > one profession |
| At to the lowest degree 1 scientific member, i nonscientific member, and 1 unaffiliated fellow member | |
| Members sufficiently qualified through diverse feel and expertise to safeguard subjects' rights and welfare and to evaluate research acceptability related to laws, regulations, institutional commitments, and professional person standards | |
| At least 1 fellow member knowledgeable about whatsoever regularly researched vulnerable groups | |
| Members report and recusal for conflicts of interest | |
| Advertisement hoc experts equally needed | |
| Functions/operations (45CFR.46 108; 21CFR.56.108) | Follow written procedures for initial and continuing review and for any changes and amendments |
| Written procedures for reporting unanticipated problems, risks, and noncompliance | |
| Quorum of majority at convened meetings. Approval requires majority vote | |
| Review (45CFR.46 109; 21CFR.56.109) | Authorisation to approve, require modifications of, or disapprove inquiry |
| Require informed consent and documentation (or approve a waiver 1 ) | |
| Notify investigators in writing | |
| At least annual continuing 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 pick is equitable and attention to vulnerable populations; informed consent volition be sought and documented; adequate provisions for monitoring; adequate provisions to protect confidentiality; additional safeguards for subjects vulnerable to compulsion or undue influence |
| Authority (45CFR.46. 113; 21CFR.56.113) | Institutional officials cannot corroborate research that is disapproved by the IRB (45CFR.46 only) |
| The IRB can append or end inquiry for serious harm or noncompliance | |
| Records (45CFR.46. 115, 21CFR.56.115) | Records of enquiry proposals, meetings, actions, correspondence, members, and and so forth |
History of IRBs in the The states
Recognizing that review by impartial others might mitigate conflicting differences in the upstanding responsibilities of md-investigators to research subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, aid to protect the rights and welfare of inquiry subjects, James Shannon, Md, Managing director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in 1965 proposed that all NIH inquiry involving human subjects be evaluated by an impartial panel of peers to ensure its upstanding integrity. His thought derived, at least in part, from a model that began at the NIH Clinical Centre when it opened in 1953, which was a model of group peer review for research involving healthy volunteers. 1 In 1966, US Public Health Service policy requirements for upstanding review, which were expanded to all Department of Wellness Education and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) research past 1971, were not well enforced. i Regulations for the protection of human subjects for DHHS, published in 1974 (45CFR.46), included a requirement for group ethics review and the term "institutional review board" was introduced. The World Medical Association also introduced review by an independent committee for oversight of science and ideals into the 1975 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. eight The National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by the United states of america Congress subsequently revelations of the US Public Health Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Written report which explicated ethical principles underlying the acquit of human subjects research. 9 The Commission's contributions, including integration of the Belmont principles, were incorporated into updated US regulations in 1981. The 1981 DHHS regulations were later on adopted by xvi federal agencies (not including the FDA) in 1991 every bit the Mutual Rule. The FDA required an IRB outset in 1981 (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, office 56), although some investigators funded by pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. 10 The about all-encompassing proposed changes to the Common Rule since 1991 were issued by the DHHS in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 2011 in an endeavor to heighten protections and efficiency. 11,12 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 Discover of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = US Section of Wellness, Education, and Welfare; DHHS = Department of Health and Human Services; FDA = Us Food and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Health.
US regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart E and 21CFR.56.106 require IRBs to be registered with the DHHS Office of Human being Enquiry Protections (OHRP), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Common Rule. Research institutions that receive DHHS funds file with OHRP an assurance that the institution volition comply with federal regulations, chosen a Federal Wide Assurance. 13 Each balls has to include at least one internal or external IRB registered with OHRP. The FDA requires registration of IRBs but does non crave 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 resources over the subsequent decades accept significantly changed the face of research. Growth in public and private spending 14,15 as well as evolving scientific opportunities take created novel challenges for IRBs. The majority of clinical trials are at present multisite, and some include > 100 sites, often with sites in multiple countries. 16 In addition to multicenter and multinational research, IRBs review, for instance, proposals for enquiry with stored samples and information, prison cell-based and stem cell therapies, emergency enquiry, social science enquiry, and community-based inquiry. IRBs operate under the same regulatory structure and employ like 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 development of new entities involved in clinical research, such equally contract inquiry organizations, data and safe monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, among others.
Changes to IRBs
Meantime, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs have continued to increase. Almost research institutions, universities, and wellness-care facilities have at least one IRB, and the majority has more than than one. 17 In addition, there are a number of contained or commercial IRBs. xviii Increasingly, IRBs are tasked with responsibilities beyond those required by federal regulation, including, for example, review of conflicts of interest, compliance with privacy regulations, grooming of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, among others. IRBs practice indeed have responsibleness for reviewing the scientific discipline to assess the soundness of the blueprint and the risks and benefits of the proposed research, however, many institutions have a split up scientific review process that precedes and complements IRB review.
Dissatisfaction and business organization about what is perceived as an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has besides mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB system as dysfunctional and "more concerned with protecting the institution than research participants." 19 Some claim that IRBs are overburdened 20 and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain almost burden: excessive paperwork, inflexible interpretation of regulatory requirements, attending to inconsequential details, and "mission pitter-patter"—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to have little to do with protection of research participants. 21 Fear of regulatory admonition has fueled a focus on compliance with regulations. 22 Some perceive the excessive or "hyper" regulation as seriously affecting or stifling research productivity and adding cost without adding meaningful protections for participants. 23,24 Clinical investigators complain that the IRB review process is inefficient and delays their research for what seem like minor modifications. 25 The public hears about problems and fears that research might be unsafe and existing protections ineffective or inadequate. 26,27
Charles McCarthy, the outset director of the Usa Part for Protection from Research Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, "[IRBs] take become more than insightful and sophisticated…But unless [the Human Research Protection Arrangement] is considered to be an evolving and expanding mechanism, adapting to the problems of each period of history, it is in danger of becoming fossilized and ineffective." 28 Flexibility and adaptability are important characteristics not usually attributed to IRBs. The challenge is how to evolve, expand, and adapt IRBs to the current exigencies of research in a rational and meaningful fashion. As noted by Cohen and Lynch, 29 the system is "ripe for a major form correction."
Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges
Recognition of the need for a robust organization of protecting homo inquiry subjects within the changing research landscape has led to various proposals for reform and suggestions for alternative models. thirty‐35
Reform proposals offer changes to address some of the various factors that are problematic for IRBs and for those who use them. All the same, reform efforts have been somewhat paralyzed past the tension betwixt those who find the current system inadequate and those who detect it besides overreaching. 36,37 Yet, many grant that multiple reviews for a single study are duplicative, pb to significant delays in research without adding meaningful protections, and can event in inconsistencies that bias the science. 38,39 Additional reasons for considering reform of the current oversight system include inherent conflicts of interest, inadequate resources, the emergence of new research methodologies, and insufficient expertise of members, amid others. 40 IRBs as well grapple with how to reply 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
Diverse systems of pre-IRB review accept gained traction equally a way to improve IRB efficiency: Major issues and gaps tin 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 establishment, investigators, and research teams in addition to IRBs in protecting human subjects. 43 Several alternatives to the traditional model of single IRB review or review at each site of a multisite study have been developed and tried (Table 2). 44‐53 Proposed revisions to the Mutual Rule include a recommendation for a unmarried IRB of record for domestic multisite trials. ix More recently, the NIH called for comments on a draft proposal for a unmarried 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 development 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 two ]
Alternative Models for IRB Review
| Type | Caption | Examples |
| Local IRB review | Single-site study or review at each site for single site or multisite studies | Most research institutions have ≥ 1 IRB at the site that review research conducted at that site. |
| Shared IRB review | ||
| Reliance | An establishment formally "relies" on the IRB of another institution for review of a particular report or prepare of studies. | Increasingly ≥ i site partner with another IRB through a reliance agreement. Come across, for example NIAID, CHOP, and others. |
| Shared review | Concurrent regional or central and local review | Indian Health Service |
| Centralized review | ||
| Central IRB | Cardinal IRB established to review all studies of a type, each site accepts the central review | National Cancer Institute'due south Central IRB (2 adult, one pediatric, one cancer prevention and control) |
| American University of Family Physicians National Research Network IRB | ||
| Veterans Assistants central IRB | ||
| A grouping of institutions form an alliance and create a new primal IRB to serve as IRB for group. | Biomedical Research Alliance 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 primal IRB for all sites of a network. | ||
| One of the existing NIH intramural IRBs is designated as the central PHERRB for public health emergencies. | ||
| Contained/commercial | A freestanding IRB (not role of an institution) is employed to review single or multiple site studies. | Western IRB, Chesapeake IRB, many others |
| Federated model | Allows sites to choose among multiple options including reliance, shared review, local review, or facilitated review. All options include a commitment to sharing IRB submissions and determinations among written report sites. | National Children's Study (NICHD) |
Need for Show
Reform proposals often recognize the need for data virtually 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 research. Evidence virtually how well IRBs are functioning, how constructive they are, and how they could be more efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies draw IRB structure, process, or outcomes and show that IRB judgments are inconsistent, equally is their awarding of a standard ready of regulations. 58,59 Practices and decisions vary betwixt and within IRBs often without justification, including determinations nearly risk level, inclusion criteria, and the appropriateness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55,60 Despite complaints about inconsistency, independence and local evaluation make some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, information technology is difficult to find a study or to identify metrics able to measure how effective IRBs are at ensuring the ethical conduct of research or protecting research participants. 61 Improving effectiveness requires clear and measurable goals for IRBs and upstanding justification for regulatory requirements. 62
Many of these factors converge for critics of the IRB organisation: growing requirements and costs, 63,64 bureaucratic burden, vague goals, and limited bear witness of effectiveness.
"The available bear witness indicates that at that place are substantial direct and indirect costs associated with IRB oversight of research. IRBs too operate inconsistently and inefficiently, and focus their attention on paperwork and bureaucratic compliance. Despite their prevalence, at that place is no empirical prove that IRB oversight has any benefit whatsoever—allow lonely benefit that exceeds the toll." 65
Both normative analysis and empirical bear witness are needed to sympathize how to improve the electric current system and optimize protections for gimmicky research. If the goal is primarily to protect inquiry participants from run a risk, for example, then more analysis of what risks count and more empirical evidence about research risks would provide management for how nosotros are doing and where the gaps are. As Taylor 66 notes, "whether and how to protect is inescapably normative and inescapably empirical." In its 2011 written report Moral Science: Protecting Human being Participants in Human Subjects Inquiry, the President's Commission recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of human subjects research "develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of human field of study protections and expand support for research related to the ethical and social considerations of man subject protections." 67
Centralizing IRB Review
Primarily driven by concerns about redundant review, burden, and delay, much attention has been given to the idea of unmarried or central IRB review for multisite studies every bit an alternative to local IRB review at each site. Multiple reviews also have the possibility of jeopardizing the scientific discipline by introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted past federal regulations 68 to utilise arrangements that centralize or share reviews, yet relatively few employ these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations take recommended single or fundamental review for multisite studies. 10,28‐31,35 Lingering resistance to adopting fundamental or unmarried 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 cost-sharing. 30,54 At that place is a paucity of data evaluating how single or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resource use, or efficiency.
Conclusions
IRBs take an important role in protecting human research participants from possible harm and exploitation. Independent review by an IRB or equivalent is an important part of a arrangement of protections aiming to ensure that upstanding principles are followed and that adequate and appropriate safeguards are in identify to protect subjects' rights and welfare while they contribute to ethically and scientifically rigorous research. Over the 4 decades since IRBs were codified into regulations, IRB review and oversight has adult and matured every bit part of a robust system that provides "substantial protections for the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects." 69 Still, during that same period, enquiry 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 joint of the goals of IRB review have not kept pace. Although ethical principles underlying inquiry with man subjects have not inverse, their implementation and appearing 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 assistance shape the futurity structure, organization, processes, and outcomes of review and oversight past IRBs and related players. These efforts volition support progress in clinical research, public trust in the enterprise, and protection of the participants that brand enquiry possible.
Acknowledgments
Conflict of involvement: None declared.
Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no role in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript.
Other contributions: Views expressed are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Man Services. The author is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, Medico, PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.
ABBREVIATIONS
| DHHS | Section of Health and Human Services |
| FDA | US Food and Drug Administration |
| IRB | institutional review board |
| NIH | National Institutes of Wellness |
| OHRP | Role of Human being Research Protections |
Footnotes
FUNDING/Support: Work on this commodity was supported by the Clinical Middle, Department of Bioethics, in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.
Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians. Run across online for more details.
References
1. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Hunker R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Enquiry Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:541-550. [Google Scholar]
4. Usa Code of Federal Regulations. Championship 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed]
5. US Code of Federal Regulations. Championship 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for manufacture and FDA staff FDA acceptance of foreign clinical studies not conducted under an IND oft asked questions.US Food and Drug Assistants website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2015.
vi. Us Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Human being Inquiry Protections (OHRP). International compilation of homo subjects standards. Usa Department of Wellness and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March one, 2015.
8. Riis P. Alphabetic character from...Denmark. Planning of scientific-ethical committees. BMJ. 1977;2(6080):173-174. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ix. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Study: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Man Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Department of Health Pedagogy and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication Bone 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
x. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board function. In: Emanuel Due east, Grady C, Crouch R, Prevarication R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Inquiry Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:552-559. [Google Scholar]
11. Role of Homo Subjects Protection. Avant-garde detect of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Common Rule. US Section of Wellness and Homo Services website. http://world wide web.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. 2011. Accessed February ten, 2015.
12. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. North Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Part of Human Inquiry Protections. IRBs and assurances. The states Section of Health and Human being Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html. Accessed Feb 2, 2015.
14. Office of Budget: appropriations history past institute/center (1938 to present). National Institutes of Health, Part of Budget website. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html. Accessed March iii, 2015.
xvi. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are cardinal institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Claret Institute Working Group'due south written report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Association for the Accreditation of Human being Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Homo Research Protection Programme Performance. Washington, DC: Association for the Accreditation of Man Research Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar]
19. Fost Due north, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of homo subjects research. JAMA. 2007;298(xviii):2196-2198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel'south 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 creep in the IRB earth. Scientific discipline. 2006;312(5779):1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Weil C, Rooney L, McNeilly P, Cooper K, Borror K, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight messages: an update. IRB. 2010;32(two):1-half-dozen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory brunt on research and quality comeback efforts. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):328-335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on inquiry imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(four):599-627. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Whitney SN, Alcser Yard, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Master investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;five(2):68-72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lemonick Thou, Goldstein A, Park A. Homo guinea pigs. Fourth dimension. April 22, 2002. [Google Scholar]
27. Gilbert S. Trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(2):14-18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel Due east, Grady C, Crouch R, Prevarication R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford Academy Press; 2008:550. [Google Scholar]
29. Cohen IG, Lynch HF, eds. Introduction. Human Subjects Inquiry Regulation, Perspectives on the Hereafter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:2. [Google Scholar]
xxx. Clan of American Medical Colleges.Culling Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Section of Health and Human Services; 2005. [Google Scholar]
31. Summary of the 2006 National Briefing on Alternative IRB Models: optimizing human subject protection. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconf06rpt.pdf. November 2006. Accessed Jan 5, 2015.
32. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are primal institutional review boards the solution? The National Centre, Lung, and Blood Establish Working Grouping's report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Federman D, Hanna K, Rodriguez Fifty, eds. Responsible Inquiry: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS. Research ethics. To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science. 2012;335(6076):1576-1577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Wood A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ. Regional ideals organizations for protection of human research participants. Nat Med. 2004;ten(12):1283-1288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Kim South, 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 central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;10(four):560-567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Ledford H. Human-subjects research: trial and error. Nature. 2007;448(7153):530-532. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Menikoff J. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1591-1593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Emanuel EJ, Forest A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human being participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(four):282-291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Wilfond BS, Magnus D, Antommaria AH, et al. The OHRP and SUPPORT. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):e36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Fanaroff JM. Ethical support for surfactant, positive pressure level, and oxygenation randomized trial (SUPPORT). J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1498-1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Speers M. Evaluating the effectiveness of institutional review boards. In: Emanuel East, 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 central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(18):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. National Cancer Found Central IRB Initiative. National Cancer Found website. https://ncicirb.org/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
46. Graham DG, Spano MS, Manning B. The IRB challenge for practice-based research: strategies of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Inquiry Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Lath Fam Med. 2007;20(two):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Office of Research and Development. VA central institutional review board (IRB). Usa 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 Alliance of New York (BRANY) website. http://www.branyirb.com. Accessed February iii, 2015.
49. Kaufmann P, O'Rourke PP. Fundamental institutional review board 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 written report on the National Children's Study federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(6):i-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Asking for comments on the typhoon NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site research. National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/detect-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html. Published December 3, 2014. Accessed March ii, 2015.
56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(one):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 role of outcomes assessment in research ideals review. BMC Med Ideals. 2008;nine:six. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to acquire. J Empir Res Hum Res Ideals. 2011;6(one):3-19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Arnold R, et al. How closely do institutional review boards follow the common dominion? Acad Med. 2012;87(7):969-974. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Shah South, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How practice institutional review boards apply the federal adventure and benefit standards for pediatric enquiry? JAMA. 2004;291(iv):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Grady C. Practise IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Problems. Further analysis and recommendations: recommendation 5. In: Moral Scientific discipline: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Inquiry. 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 Establish Central Institutional Review Board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):662-666. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Sugarman J, Getz K, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ethics. The cost of institutional review boards in bookish 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 exercise? Northwestern University Police force Review. 2007;101(2):749-774. [Google Scholar]
66. Taylor P. Introduction to part Two—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. US Code of Federal Regulations at 45CFR.46 and 21CFR56.
Articles from Chest are provided hither courtesy of American College of Breast Physicians
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631034/
0 Response to "Which of the Following Comes Closest to the Purpose of an Institutional Review Board"
Postar um comentário