What Is the Purpose of an Institutional Review Board?
Breast. 2015 Nov; 148(5): 1148–1155.
Institutional Review Boards
Purpose and Challenges
Received 2015 Mar 23; Accustomed 2015 Apr thirty.
Abstract
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a cadre protection for human research participants through accelerate and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for man enquiry. IRBs were codified in The states regulation just over three decades agone and are widely required by police or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the enquiry landscape has grown and evolved, equally has the system of IRB review and oversight. Testify of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB organisation. Some mutter that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear prove of effectiveness at protecting homo subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Electric current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more than attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the The states federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and exam review and oversight models that provide acceptable and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future research.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or equivalent bodies provide a core protection for human participants in biomedical and behavioral inquiry in the Us and > 80 other countries effectually the earth. 1 IRBs are charged with providing an independent evaluation that proposed enquiry is ethically acceptable, 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 by the Section of Health and Human being Services (DHHS) and other US federal agencies, as well equally for inquiry testing interventions—such as drugs, biologics, and devices—that are under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Tabular array 1 2,3 ). US research institutions tin can and oft do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their human subjects inquiry. Research conducted outside of the United states of america but funded by the US regime is subject area to the aforementioned Usa federal regulations and so requires IRB review or equivalent protections. four Research conducted exterior of the United States, not under an investigational new drug that submits data to the FDA for a new drug or biologic license application, must comply with Good Clinical Exercise guidelines, which include review and approving by an independent review commission and informed consent. 5 Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions around the world also require review by an independent research ethics committee or IRB. half-dozen Regulatory bodies in the European Marriage, Japan, U.s., Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries, among others, follow Good Clinical Practise guidelines such as those delineated past the International Conference on Harmonisation, which crave approval by an independent ethics committee or IRB. seven IRBs or research ethics committees, composed of a grouping of people independent of the specific research, review proposed research plans and related documents before a written report tin begin and then periodically (normally annually) for the report duration. The goal of IRB review is to clinch that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects volition be adequately protected in the pursuit of the proposed research study. To exist 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 noesis the report is expected to produce, that the process and outcomes of bailiwick selection are off-white (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that there are adequate plans for obtaining informed consent.
TABLE 1 ]
Selected U.s. Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)
| Regulation | Requirements |
| Membership (45CFR.46 107; 21CFR.56.107) | At least 5 members of varying backgrounds, both sexes, and > 1 profession |
| At least 1 scientific member, one nonscientific member, and one 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 standards | |
| At least 1 fellow member knowledgeable about any regularly researched vulnerable groups | |
| Members study and recusal for conflicts of interest | |
| Advertizement hoc experts as needed | |
| Functions/operations (45CFR.46 108; 21CFR.56.108) | Follow written procedures for initial and standing review and for any changes and amendments |
| Written procedures for reporting unanticipated bug, risks, and noncompliance | |
| Quorum of majority at convened meetings. Approval requires majority vote | |
| Review (45CFR.46 109; 21CFR.56.109) | Authority to corroborate, require modifications of, or disapprove enquiry |
| Crave informed consent and documentation (or approve a waiver ane ) | |
| 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 knowledge; subject field selection is equitable and attention to vulnerable populations; informed consent volition be sought and documented; adequate provisions for monitoring; acceptable 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 suspend or terminate research for serious harm or noncompliance | |
| Records (45CFR.46. 115, 21CFR.56.115) | Records of enquiry proposals, meetings, actions, correspondence, members, and then along |
History of IRBs in the U.s.a.
Recognizing that review by impartial others might mitigate conflicting differences in the ethical responsibilities of medico-investigators to research subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, assistance to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, James Shannon, Md, 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 ethical integrity. His idea derived, at least in office, from a model that began at the NIH Clinical Center when information technology opened in 1953, which was a model of group peer review for enquiry involving healthy volunteers. ane In 1966, United states of america Public Health Service policy requirements for upstanding review, which were expanded to all Department of Health Education and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) research by 1971, were not well enforced. 1 Regulations for the protection of human being subjects for DHHS, published in 1974 (45CFR.46), included a requirement for grouping ideals review and the term "institutional review board" was introduced. The World Medical Clan also introduced review past an independent committee for oversight of scientific discipline and ethics into the 1975 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. viii The National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Enquiry, established by the US Congress after revelations of the US Public Wellness Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Study which explicated ethical principles underlying the conduct of human being subjects research. nine The Commission'south 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 as the Mutual Rule. The FDA required an IRB beginning in 1981 (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, part 56), although some investigators funded by pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. x The most all-encompassing proposed changes to the Common Rule since 1991 were issued by the DHHS in an Advance Detect of Proposed Rule Making in 2011 in an try to enhance protections and efficiency. 11,12 Public comments were solicited and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is under development, but every bit of this writing has not been published (Fig 1).
Timeline of regulations and guidance regarding IRB review. ANPRM = Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = US Department of Health, Didactics, and Welfare; DHHS = Department of Health and Human being Services; FDA = United states of america Food and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Health.
United states regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart Due east and 21CFR.56.106 require IRBs to be registered with the DHHS Office of Man Research Protections (OHRP), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Mutual Rule. Inquiry institutions that receive DHHS funds file with OHRP an assurance that the institution will comply with federal regulations, called a Federal Wide Assurance. xiii Each assurance has to include at least ane internal or external IRB registered with OHRP. The FDA requires registration of IRBs but does not crave prospective assurances of compliance; sponsors and investigators include testify of IRB review when they submit data to the FDA.
Changes to Research
At the time that IRBs were codification in regulation, single-site clinical research was the predominant prototype. Advances in knowledge, technology, and resources over the subsequent decades have significantly changed the face of inquiry. Growth in public and private spending 14,15 likewise as evolving scientific opportunities have created novel challenges for IRBs. The majority of clinical trials are at present multisite, and some include > 100 sites, frequently with sites in multiple countries. 16 In addition to multicenter and multinational research, IRBs review, for case, proposals for research with stored samples and data, jail cell-based and stem prison cell therapies, emergency research, social science research, and community-based research. IRBs operate nether the same regulatory structure and utilise similar procedures despite a wide range of types of enquiry posing disparate risks to subjects' rights and welfare. Furthermore, the complication of oversight has changed with the development of new entities involved in clinical research, such equally contract research organizations, data and rubber monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, amid others.
Changes to IRBs
Meantime, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs have continued to increase. Nigh research institutions, universities, and health-intendance facilities accept at least one IRB, and the majority has more than i. 17 In add-on, there are a number of independent or commercial IRBs. eighteen Increasingly, IRBs are tasked with responsibilities beyond those required by federal regulation, including, for example, review of conflicts of interest, compliance with privacy regulations, training of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, among others. IRBs do indeed have responsibility for reviewing the science to appraise the soundness of the design and the risks and benefits of the proposed inquiry, nevertheless, many institutions take a separate scientific review procedure that precedes and complements IRB review.
Dissatisfaction and business virtually what is perceived equally an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has too mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB organisation as dysfunctional and "more concerned with protecting the establishment than enquiry participants." 19 Some claim that IRBs are overburdened 20 and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about brunt: excessive paperwork, inflexible interpretation of regulatory requirements, attention to inconsequential details, and "mission creep"—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to have trivial 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 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 procedure is inefficient and delays their enquiry 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 Inquiry Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, "[IRBs] take become more insightful and sophisticated…Simply unless [the Human Research Protection System] is considered to be an evolving and expanding mechanism, adapting to the problems of each flow of history, it is in danger of becoming fossilized and ineffective." 28 Flexibility and adaptability are important characteristics non usually attributed to IRBs. The challenge is how to evolve, expand, and adapt IRBs to the electric current exigencies of enquiry in a rational and meaningful manner. As noted past Cohen and Lynch, 29 the system is "ripe for a major grade correction."
Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges
Recognition of the need for a robust system of protecting human research subjects inside the irresolute 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 utilise them. Yet, reform efforts have been somewhat paralyzed by the tension between those who find the current system inadequate and those who observe it too overreaching. 36,37 Nonetheless, many grant that multiple reviews for a single study are duplicative, lead to significant delays in research without adding meaningful protections, and can event in inconsistencies that bias the science. 38,39 Boosted reasons for because reform of the current oversight system include inherent conflicts of involvement, inadequate resources, the emergence of new research methodologies, and insufficient expertise of members, amidst others. xl IRBs also grapple with how to respond to evolving inquiry methods, and high profile cases in which regulators disagree with or disapprove of IRB decisions can fuel doubt and anxiety. 41,42
Various systems of pre-IRB review have gained traction as a way to meliorate IRB efficiency: Major issues and gaps can be identified and corrected through prereview before an IRB sees the proposal. Institutions are likewise adopting a framework that more explicitly recognizes the essential roles of the institution, 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 report have been developed and tried (Table 2). 44‐53 Proposed revisions to the Common Rule include a recommendation for a single IRB of record for domestic multisite trials. 9 More recently, the NIH called for comments on a typhoon proposal for a unmarried IRB review for NIH-funded multisite trials. 54 NIH is besides currently funding several empirical studies of cardinal 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, toll structures, and incentives, and doubt about the relative merits of proposed models. 56
Tabular array 2 ]
Culling 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 inquiry institutions take ≥ 1 IRB at the site that review inquiry conducted at that site. |
| Shared IRB review | ||
| Reliance | An institution formally "relies" on the IRB of another establishment for review of a detail report or set of studies. | Increasingly ≥ 1 site partner with another IRB through a reliance agreement. Meet, for example NIAID, CHOP, and others. |
| Shared review | Concurrent regional or central and local review | Indian Health Service |
| Centralized review | ||
| Cardinal IRB | Central IRB established to review all studies of a type, each site accepts the central review | National Cancer Institute's Key IRB (two developed, one pediatric, i cancer prevention and control) |
| American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network IRB | ||
| Veterans Administration central IRB | ||
| A group of institutions class an alliance and create a new central IRB to serve every bit IRB for group. | Biomedical Research Brotherhood of New York (BRANY) | |
| OR | The IRB at Massachusetts General Hospital is designated every bit IRB of record for all NINDS-funded NeuroNext institutions. | |
| An existing IRB is designated every bit the central IRB for all sites of a network. | ||
| Ane of the existing NIH intramural IRBs is designated as the fundamental PHERRB for public health emergencies. | ||
| Independent/commercial | A freestanding IRB (not part of an institution) is employed to review unmarried or multiple site studies. | Western IRB, Chesapeake IRB, many others |
| Federated model | Allows sites to cull among multiple options including reliance, shared review, local review, or facilitated review. All options include a commitment to sharing IRB submissions and determinations among study sites. | National Children'southward Study (NICHD) |
Need for Prove
Reform proposals ofttimes recognize the need for data most what works and for creative and testable means 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 well-nigh how well IRBs are functioning, how effective they are, and how they could be more efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies draw IRB construction, process, or outcomes and prove that IRB judgments are inconsistent, equally is their awarding of a standard set of regulations. 58,59 Practices and decisions vary between and within IRBs frequently without justification, including determinations about risk level, inclusion criteria, and the ceremoniousness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55,60 Despite complaints about inconsistency, independence and local evaluation make some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, it is difficult to discover a study or to place metrics able to measure out 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 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 testify of effectiveness.
"The bachelor bear witness indicates that there are substantial direct and indirect costs associated with IRB oversight of research. IRBs also operate inconsistently and inefficiently, and focus their attention on paperwork and bureaucratic compliance. Despite their prevalence, in that location is no empirical evidence that IRB oversight has whatever benefit whatsoever—let solitary benefit that exceeds the cost." 65
Both normative analysis and empirical evidence are needed to understand how to improve the current organization and optimize protections for contemporary enquiry. If the goal is primarily to protect research participants from risk, for case, then more assay of what risks count and more empirical bear witness about research risks would provide direction for how we are doing and where the gaps are. Equally Taylor 66 notes, "whether and how to protect is inescapably normative and inescapably empirical." In its 2011 study Moral Science: Protecting Man Participants in Human Subjects Enquiry, the President'southward Commission recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of human being subjects enquiry "develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of human subject protections and aggrandize support for research related to the upstanding and social considerations of homo subject protections." 67
Centralizing IRB Review
Primarily driven past concerns about redundant review, burden, and delay, 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 take the possibility of jeopardizing the scientific discipline by introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted by federal regulations 68 to utilize arrangements that centralize or share reviews, yet relatively few utilise these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations have recommended unmarried or primal review for multisite studies. 10,28‐31,35 Lingering resistance to adopting central or single review for multisite trials appears to be based on concerns virtually the importance of local context, local accountability and liability, discomfort with relinquishing control over the review, uncertainty most the quality of review by other IRBs, and logistical concerns such as cost-sharing. 30,54 There is a paucity of information evaluating how unmarried or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resource use, or efficiency.
Conclusions
IRBs have an of import role in protecting human research participants from possible harm and exploitation. Independent review by an IRB or equivalent is an important role of a system of protections aiming to ensure that ethical 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, 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 upstanding principles underlying research with human subjects take non 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 assist shape the hereafter structure, system, 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 research possible.
Acknowledgments
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no function in the blueprint 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 do non necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Wellness or the Department of Wellness and Human Services. The writer is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, MD, PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.
ABBREVIATIONS
| DHHS | Department of Health and Human Services |
| FDA | Usa Nutrient and Drug Administration |
| IRB | institutional review lath |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| OHRP | Office of Man Research Protections |
Footnotes
FUNDING/Back up: Work on this commodity was supported past 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 College of Chest Physicians. See online for more details.
References
1. 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]
4. U.s. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed]
5. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for industry and FDA staff FDA acceptance of foreign clinical studies not conducted under an IND frequently asked questions.US Food and Drug Administration website. http://world wide web.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed Apr 12, 2015.
6. U.s.a. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP). International compilation of human being subjects standards. US Department of Wellness and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March 1, 2015.
8. Riis P. Letter from...Denmark. Planning of scientific-upstanding committees. BMJ. 1977;2(6080):173-174. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Written report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Enquiry. Washington, DC: Department of Health Education and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication OS 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board function. 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; 2008:552-559. [Google Scholar]
11. Office of Homo Subjects Protection. Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Common Dominion. Usa Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. 2011. Accessed February ten, 2015.
12. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human being subjects. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Office of Human Research Protections. IRBs and assurances. US Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html. Accessed February two, 2015.
14. Role of Upkeep: appropriations history past institute/center (1938 to nowadays). National Institutes of Health, Office of Budget website. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html. Accessed March 3, 2015.
16. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Constitute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Association for the Accreditation of Human being Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Homo Research Protection Program Performance. Washington, DC: Association for the Accreditation of Man Research Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar]
19. Fost Due north, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects inquiry. JAMA. 2007;298(xviii):2196-2198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's 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. 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 inquiry and quality comeback efforts. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(three):328-335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Silberman M, Kahn KL. Burdens on inquiry imposed by institutional review boards: the country of the testify and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(four):599-627. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Whitney SN, Alcser Grand, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Principal investigator views of the IRB arrangement. Int J Med Sci. 2008;5(ii):68-72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lemonick M, Goldstein A, Park A. Homo guinea pigs. Time. 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 East, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford Academy Printing; 2008:550. [Google Scholar]
29. Cohen IG, Lynch HF, eds. Introduction. Homo Subjects Inquiry Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Printing; 2014:2. [Google Scholar]
30. Clan of American Medical Colleges.Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Man Services; 2005. [Google Scholar]
31. Summary of the 2006 National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: optimizing homo subject protection. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://world wide web.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconf06rpt.pdf. Nov 2006. Accessed January five, 2015.
32. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Constitute Working Group'southward report on optimizing the IRB procedure. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Federman D, Hanna K, Rodriguez L, eds. Responsible Inquiry: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Printing; 2003. [Google Scholar]
34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS. Inquiry ethics. To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science. 2012;335(6076):1576-1577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Woods A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ. Regional ideals organizations for protection of man enquiry participants. Nat Med. 2004;x(12):1283-1288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Kim Southward, 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 fundamental institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;ten(4):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. North Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1591-1593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Emanuel EJ, Woods A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of man 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 Back up. North 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(v):1498-1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Speers M. Evaluating the effectiveness of 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 Printing; 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(eighteen):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. National Cancer Plant 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 practise-based research: strategies of the American Academy of Family unit Physicians National Enquiry Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Board Fam Med. 2007;xx(two):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Part of Inquiry and Development. VA central institutional review board (IRB). Us Department of Veterans Affairs website. http://www.enquiry.va.gov/programs/pride/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
48. BRANY institutional review board services. Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) website. http://world wide web.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;ninety(3):321-323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Slutsman J, Hirschfeld Southward. A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: a report on the National Children's Study federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(vi):1-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Request for comments on the draft NIH policy on the apply of a single institutional review board for multi-site research. National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html. Published December 3, 2014. Accessed March 2, 2015.
56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United states. PLoS I. 2013;eight(1):e54999. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How practise we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes cess in research ideals review. BMC Med Ethics. 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 nosotros still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):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 rule? Acad Med. 2012;87(7):969-974. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
sixty. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler Thousand, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards utilise the federal take chances and benefit standards for pediatric enquiry? JAMA. 2004;291(4):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human being research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. 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 Feb 10, 2015.
63. Wagner T, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler J, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Constitute Primal Institutional Review Board. 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 Inquiry Ethics. The price 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(2):749-774. [Google Scholar]
66. Taylor P. Introduction to office Two—protection of vulnerable populations. In: Cohen Chiliad, Lynch H, eds. Human being Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Hereafter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Printing; 2014:63. [Google Scholar]
68. U.s. Lawmaking of Federal Regulations at 45CFR.46 and 21CFR56.
Articles from Chest are provided here courtesy of American College of Breast Physicians
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631034/
0 Response to "What Is the Purpose of an Institutional Review Board?"
แสดงความคิดเห็น