What Is the Purpose of the Institutional Review Board
Breast. 2015 Nov; 148(5): 1148–1155.
Institutional Review Boards
Purpose and Challenges
Received 2015 Mar 23; Accepted 2015 Apr xxx.
Abstruse
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codification in U.s. regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required past law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the inquiry landscape has grown and evolved, as has the arrangement 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 time-consuming and burdensome without articulate evidence of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the electric current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and bear witness. Proposed changes to the The states federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide acceptable and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are advisable, efficient, and adjustable for current and future research.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or equivalent bodies provide a cadre protection for human participants in biomedical and behavioral research in the United States and > 80 other countries around the earth. 1 IRBs are charged with providing an independent evaluation that proposed enquiry is ethically adequate, checking clinical investigators' potential biases, and evaluating compliance with regulations and laws designed to protect human subjects.
Independent review of clinical research past an IRB is required for US studies funded past the Department of Health and Human being Services (DHHS) and other US federal agencies, as well as for enquiry testing interventions—such as drugs, biologics, and devices—that are under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Tabular array ane 2,3 ). Us research institutions tin can and oft do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their human subjects research. Inquiry conducted outside of the United states but funded past the The states government is subject to the same US federal regulations and so requires IRB review or equivalent protections. 4 Research conducted outside of the United states of america, non under an investigational new drug that submits data to the FDA for a new drug or biologic license awarding, must comply with Proficient Clinical Practice guidelines, which include review and approval by an independent review committee and informed consent. 5 Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions around the globe also require review by an contained research ideals committee or IRB. 6 Regulatory bodies in the European Union, Japan, The states, Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries, amidst others, follow Good Clinical Exercise guidelines such equally those delineated by the International Conference on Harmonisation, which crave approval by an contained ethics commission or IRB. 7 IRBs or research ethics committees, equanimous of a group of people contained of the specific inquiry, review proposed inquiry plans and related documents before a study can begin and and so periodically (commonly annually) for the study elapsing. The goal of IRB review is to assure that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects will exist fairly protected in the pursuit of the proposed enquiry study. 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 cognition the study is expected to produce, that the procedure and outcomes of bailiwick choice are fair (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that at that place are adequate plans for obtaining informed consent.
Table 1 ]
Selected US 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 fellow member | |
| Members sufficiently qualified through diverse experience and expertise to safeguard subjects' rights and welfare and to evaluate research acceptability related to laws, regulations, institutional commitments, and professional standards | |
| At least 1 member knowledgeable about whatsoever regularly researched vulnerable groups | |
| Members report and recusal for conflicts of involvement | |
| Advertisement hoc experts as 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 issues, risks, and noncompliance | |
| Quorum of majority at convened meetings. Approval requires bulk vote | |
| Review (45CFR.46 109; 21CFR.56.109) | Authorization to approve, crave modifications of, or disapprove research |
| Require informed consent and documentation (or approve a waiver ane ) | |
| Notify investigators in writing | |
| At to the lowest degree 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 whatsoever, and the importance of the expected knowledge; subject selection is equitable and attention to vulnerable populations; informed consent will exist 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 tin can suspend or stop enquiry 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 of america
Recognizing that review past impartial others might mitigate conflicting differences in the upstanding responsibilities of physician-investigators to inquiry subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, assistance to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, James Shannon, Doctor, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in 1965 proposed that all NIH research involving homo subjects be evaluated by an impartial panel of peers to ensure its ethical integrity. His idea derived, at least in part, from a model that began at the NIH Clinical Heart 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 ethical review, which were expanded to all Department of Health Educational activity and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) enquiry past 1971, were not well enforced. 1 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 lath" was introduced. The Globe Medical Clan as well introduced review past an independent commission for oversight of science and ethics into the 1975 revision of the Annunciation of Helsinki. 8 The National Commission for the Protection of Man Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by the US Congress after revelations of the US Public Health Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Written report which explicated upstanding principles underlying the deport of human subjects research. 9 The Committee's contributions, including integration of the Belmont principles, were incorporated into updated US regulations in 1981. The 1981 DHHS regulations were subsequently adopted by 16 federal agencies (not including the FDA) in 1991 equally the Common Rule. The FDA required an IRB first in 1981 (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, part 56), although some investigators funded by pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. x The most extensive proposed changes to the Mutual Rule since 1991 were issued by the DHHS in an Advance Notice of Proposed Dominion Making in 2011 in an endeavour to enhance protections and efficiency. 11,12 Public comments were solicited and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is under evolution, just every bit of this writing has not been published (Fig one).
Timeline of regulations and guidance regarding IRB review. ANPRM = Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; DHHS = Section of Wellness and Human Services; FDA = U.s.a. Nutrient and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Wellness.
US regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart E and 21CFR.56.106 require IRBs to be registered with the DHHS Part of Human Research 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, called a Federal Wide Balls. thirteen 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 Research
At the time that IRBs were codified in regulation, unmarried-site clinical research was the predominant epitome. Advances in knowledge, engineering science, and resources over the subsequent decades take significantly changed the face of research. Growth in public and private spending xiv,xv too every bit evolving scientific opportunities have created novel challenges for IRBs. The majority of clinical trials are now multisite, and some include > 100 sites, oft with sites in multiple countries. 16 In addition to multicenter and multinational research, IRBs review, for example, proposals for inquiry with stored samples and data, cell-based and stem prison cell therapies, emergency research, social science research, and community-based research. IRBs operate nether the aforementioned regulatory structure and use similar procedures despite a wide range of types of research posing disparate risks to subjects' rights and welfare. Furthermore, the complexity of oversight has inverse with the evolution of new entities involved in clinical research, such equally contract inquiry organizations, data and rubber monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, among others.
Changes to IRBs
Concurrently, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs accept continued to increase. Almost research institutions, universities, and wellness-care facilities take at least ane 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 example, review of conflicts of interest, compliance with privacy regulations, grooming of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, among others. IRBs do indeed take responsibility for reviewing the scientific discipline to appraise the soundness of the pattern and the risks and benefits of the proposed research, however, many institutions have a separate scientific review process that precedes and complements IRB review.
Dissatisfaction and concern about what is perceived as an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has likewise mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB arrangement as dysfunctional and "more than concerned with protecting the institution than research participants." nineteen Some merits that IRBs are overburdened xx and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about burden: excessive paperwork, inflexible interpretation of regulatory requirements, attention to inconsequential details, and "mission creep"—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to have piddling to practice 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 equally seriously affecting or stifling inquiry productivity and adding cost without adding meaningful protections for participants. 23,24 Clinical investigators mutter that the IRB review procedure is inefficient and delays their research for what seem like modest 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 first director of the US Function for Protection from Research Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, "[IRBs] have become more insightful and sophisticated…Just unless [the Human Enquiry Protection Organisation] is considered to exist an evolving and expanding mechanism, adapting to the problems of each period of history, it is in danger of condign fossilized and ineffective." 28 Flexibility and adaptability are of import characteristics not usually attributed to IRBs. The challenge is how to evolve, expand, and adapt IRBs to the current exigencies of enquiry in a rational and meaningful mode. As noted by Cohen and Lynch, 29 the organisation is "ripe for a major form correction."
Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges
Recognition of the need for a robust system of protecting human 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 apply them. Yet, reform efforts take been somewhat paralyzed by the tension between those who find the current system inadequate and those who find information technology likewise overreaching. 36,37 Nonetheless, many grant that multiple reviews for a single study are duplicative, lead to significant delays in research without calculation meaningful protections, and tin effect in inconsistencies that bias the science. 38,39 Additional reasons for considering reform of the current oversight organization include inherent conflicts of involvement, inadequate resource, the emergence of new research methodologies, and bereft expertise of members, amidst others. forty 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 have gained traction as a way to better IRB efficiency: Major issues and gaps can be identified and corrected through prereview before an IRB sees the proposal. Institutions are as well adopting a framework that more explicitly recognizes the essential roles of the institution, investigators, and inquiry teams in addition to IRBs in protecting human subjects. 43 Several alternatives to the traditional model of unmarried IRB review or review at each site of a multisite study accept been developed and tried (Table 2). 44‐53 Proposed revisions to the Common Rule include a recommendation for a unmarried IRB of record for domestic multisite trials. 9 More than recently, the NIH called for comments on a draft 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 development relevant to central IRBs. 55 Despite these meaning efforts, many challenges remain in changing the process of IRB review, including questions of liability, cost structures, and incentives, and uncertainty about the relative merits of proposed models. 56
Table 2 ]
Culling Models for IRB Review
| Type | Caption | Examples |
| Local IRB review | Single-site written report or review at each site for unmarried site or multisite studies | Most research institutions accept ≥ i IRB at the site that review inquiry 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 fix of studies. | Increasingly ≥ i site partner with some other IRB through a reliance agreement. See, for example NIAID, CHOP, and others. |
| Shared review | Concurrent regional or cardinal and local review | Indian Health Service |
| Centralized review | ||
| Central IRB | Central IRB established to review all studies of a type, each site accepts the fundamental review | National Cancer Institute's Central IRB (2 adult, i pediatric, 1 cancer prevention and control) |
| American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network IRB | ||
| Veterans Assistants primal IRB | ||
| A group of institutions grade an alliance and create a new primal 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 fundamental PHERRB for public wellness emergencies. | ||
| Independent/commercial | A freestanding IRB (not part of an establishment) is employed to review unmarried or multiple site studies. | Western IRB, Chesapeake IRB, many others |
| Federated model | Allows sites to cull amongst 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 Written report (NICHD) |
Need for Evidence
Reform proposals ofttimes recognize the need for data near 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. Show virtually how well IRBs are performance, how constructive they are, and how they could be more efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies depict IRB structure, procedure, or outcomes and testify that IRB judgments are inconsistent, equally is their application of a standard set of regulations. 58,59 Practices and decisions vary between and within IRBs often without justification, including determinations about chance level, inclusion criteria, and the appropriateness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55,lx Despite complaints about inconsistency, independence and local evaluation make some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, it is difficult to find a written report or to identify metrics able to measure how constructive IRBs are at ensuring the ethical bear of inquiry or protecting enquiry 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 organization: growing requirements and costs, 63,64 bureaucratic burden, vague goals, and express evidence of effectiveness.
"The available show indicates that at that place are substantial direct and indirect costs associated with IRB oversight of inquiry. IRBs also operate inconsistently and inefficiently, and focus their attending on paperwork and bureaucratic compliance. Despite their prevalence, there is no empirical bear witness that IRB oversight has any benefit whatever—let lone do good that exceeds the price." 65
Both normative analysis and empirical evidence are needed to sympathize how to improve the current system and optimize protections for contemporary enquiry. If the goal is primarily to protect inquiry participants from risk, for example, then more than analysis of what risks count and more empirical bear witness near inquiry 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 report Moral Scientific discipline: Protecting Homo Participants in Man Subjects Inquiry, the President's Committee recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of human subjects enquiry "develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of human subject protections and expand support for enquiry related to the upstanding and social considerations of human subject protections." 67
Centralizing IRB Review
Primarily driven by concerns about redundant review, burden, and delay, much attending has been given to the idea of single or central IRB review for multisite studies as an alternative to local IRB review at each site. Multiple reviews as well have the possibility of jeopardizing the science past introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted by federal regulations 68 to use arrangements that centralize or share reviews, yet relatively few utilize these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations have recommended single or central review for multisite studies. 10,28‐31,35 Lingering resistance to adopting central or unmarried review for multisite trials appears to exist based on concerns well-nigh 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 every bit price-sharing. 30,54 There is a paucity of information evaluating how single or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resources utilize, or efficiency.
Conclusions
IRBs have an important function in protecting human research participants from possible harm and exploitation. Contained review by an IRB or equivalent is an important function of a arrangement of protections aiming to ensure that upstanding principles are followed and that adequate and advisable safeguards are in identify to protect subjects' rights and welfare while they contribute to ethically and scientifically rigorous research. Over the four decades since IRBs were codified into regulations, IRB review and oversight has developed and matured as part of a robust arrangement that provides "substantial protections for the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects." 69 Notwithstanding, during that same period, enquiry methods and opportunities accept evolved, the domains of oversight have expanded, and the inquiry enterprise has grown and diversified. The rules, norms, procedures, and even articulation of the goals of IRB review have not kept pace. Although upstanding principles underlying research with human subjects have not changed, their implementation and actualization requires refinement and accommodation to answer to changing scientific and social contexts. Data, creativity, regulatory flexibility, and connected dialogue are needed to optimize the implementation of principles and to help shape the future structure, arrangement, processes, and outcomes of review and oversight by IRBs and related players. These efforts volition back up progress in clinical research, public trust in the enterprise, and protection of the participants that make inquiry possible.
Acknowledgments
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no role in the pattern of the study, the drove and analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript.
Other contributions: Views expressed are the author's and exercise not necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services. The writer is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, Dr., PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.
ABBREVIATIONS
| DHHS | Section of Health and Homo Services |
| FDA | U.s. Food and Drug Administration |
| IRB | institutional review board |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| OHRP | Role of Homo Research Protections |
Footnotes
FUNDING/SUPPORT: Work on this article was supported by the Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.
Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American Higher of Breast Physicians. See online for more details.
References
ane. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:541-550. [Google Scholar]
four. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed]
five. US Code of Federal Regulations. Championship 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for industry and FDA staff FDA acceptance of foreign clinical studies non conducted under an IND frequently asked questions.The states Food and Drug Assistants website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2015.
6. Usa Department of Health and Homo Services. Role of Human Research Protections (OHRP). International compilation of human subjects standards. Us Department of Wellness and Human Services website. http://world wide web.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March ane, 2015.
8. Riis P. Letter from...Kingdom of denmark. Planning of scientific-ethical committees. BMJ. 1977;2(6080):173-174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ix. The National Commission for the Protection of Man Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Written report: Upstanding Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Homo Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Section of Health Education and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication Os 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board role. In: Emanuel E, 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 discover of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Common Rule. Usa Department of Health and Human 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. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Office of Human being Research Protections. IRBs and assurances. The states Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html. Accessed Feb 2, 2015.
14. Part of Budget: appropriations history by establish/eye (1938 to nowadays). National Institutes of Health, Office of Upkeep website. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html. Accessed March 3, 2015.
sixteen. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are key institutional review boards the solution? The National Center, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Grouping's written report on optimizing the IRB procedure. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Human Enquiry Protection Plan Performance. Washington, DC: Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar]
19. Fost N, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects enquiry. JAMA. 2007;298(18):2196-2198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel'due south back: 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 world. Science. 2006;312(5779):1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Weil C, Rooney L, McNeilly P, Cooper One thousand, Borror K, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight letters: an update. IRB. 2010;32(2):1-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Infectious Diseases Society 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 One thousand, Kahn KL. Burdens on inquiry imposed past institutional review boards: the country of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599-627. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Whitney SN, Alcser K, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Primary investigator views of the IRB organization. Int J Med Sci. 2008;5(ii):68-72. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lemonick Thou, Goldstein A, Park A. Human guinea pigs. Time. April 22, 2002. [Google Scholar]
27. Gilbert S. Trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(2):xiv-xviii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel East, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie 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. Man Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Printing; 2014:two. [Google Scholar]
thirty. Association of American Medical Colleges.Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Section of Health and Human Services; 2005. [Google Scholar]
31. Summary of the 2006 National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: optimizing man subject 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 Heart, Lung, and Blood Found Working Grouping's study on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Federman D, Hanna K, Rodriguez Fifty, eds. Responsible Inquiry: A Systems Arroyo 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. Scientific discipline. 2012;335(6076):1576-1577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Forest 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 central 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. Human-subjects enquiry: 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]
40. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human participants inquiry: 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. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):e36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Fanaroff JM. Ethical support for surfactant, positive pressure, and oxygenation randomized trial (SUPPORT). J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1498-1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Speers G. 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 Inquiry Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:560-568. [Google Scholar]
44. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A cardinal institutional review lath for multi-institutional trials. Due north Engl J Med. 2002;346(18):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. National Cancer Institute Central IRB Initiative. National Cancer Institute website. https://ncicirb.org/cirb. Accessed March one, 2015.
46. Graham DG, Spano MS, Manning B. The IRB claiming for practise-based research: strategies of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Inquiry Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Board Fam Med. 2007;20(two):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Role of Enquiry and Development. VA central institutional review board (IRB). US Department 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 iii, 2015.
49. Kaufmann P, O'Rourke PP. Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network. Acad Med. 2015;90(iii):321-323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Slutsman J, Hirschfeld S. A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: a study on the National Children's Study federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(half-dozen):ane-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Request for comments on the draft NIH policy on the utilise of a single institutional review board for multi-site research. National Institutes of Wellness website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-xv-026.html. Published December 3, 2014. Accessed March 2, 2015.
56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using key IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the Us. PLoS Ane. 2013;8(1):e54999. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How exercise we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes cess in enquiry ideals review. BMC Med Ideals. 2008;9:6. [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 demand 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 practise institutional review boards follow the common rule? Acad Med. 2012;87(7):969-974. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How practise institutional review boards apply the federal chance and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA. 2004;291(4):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(ten):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Presidential Committee for the Study of Bioethical Problems. Further analysis and recommendations: recommendation 5. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Man 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 Institute Central Institutional Review Board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):662-666. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Sugarman J, Getz 1000, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Enquiry 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 nosotros can do? Northwestern Academy Law Review. 2007;101(two):749-774. [Google Scholar]
66. Taylor P. Introduction to part Ii—protection of vulnerable populations. In: Cohen Grand, Lynch H, eds. Homo Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:63. [Google Scholar]
68. U.s.a. Code of Federal Regulations at 45CFR.46 and 21CFR56.
Manufactures from Breast are provided hither courtesy of American College of Chest Physicians
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631034/
0 Response to "What Is the Purpose of the Institutional Review Board"
Post a Comment