Which of the Following Statements Best Describes the Purpose of Institutional Review Boards (Irbs)?
Chest. 2015 November; 148(five): 1148–1155.
Institutional Review Boards
Purpose and Challenges
Received 2015 Mar 23; Accepted 2015 Apr thirty.
Abstract
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for homo research participants through accelerate and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human being research. IRBs were codified in Us regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the arrangement of IRB review and oversight. Bear witness of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB arrangement. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and crushing without clear testify of effectiveness at protecting man subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently beingness tried. Electric current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more than 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 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 inquiry in the Us and > 80 other countries around the world. i 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 subjects.
Contained review of clinical enquiry by an IRB is required for Usa studies funded by the Department of Health and Homo Services (DHHS) and other Usa federal agencies, as well every bit for inquiry testing interventions—such as drugs, biologics, and devices—that are nether the jurisdiction of the U.s. Nutrient and Drug Administration (FDA) (Table 1 2,iii ). U.s.a. inquiry institutions can and oft do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their man subjects research. Inquiry conducted outside of the United states of america just funded past the U.s.a. government is field of study to the same US federal regulations and and then requires IRB review or equivalent protections. 4 Research conducted outside of the U.s.a., non under an investigational new drug that submits data to the FDA for a new drug or biologic license application, must comply with Good Clinical Do guidelines, which include review and blessing by an contained review committee and informed consent. five Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions effectually the world besides require review past an independent research ideals committee or IRB. 6 Regulatory bodies in the European Matrimony, Japan, United states, Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries, among others, follow Adept Clinical Practice guidelines such equally those delineated by the International Briefing on Harmonisation, which require approval by an independent ethics committee or IRB. 7 IRBs or inquiry ethics committees, equanimous of a group of people contained of the specific inquiry, review proposed enquiry plans and related documents earlier a study tin begin and so periodically (normally annually) for the study elapsing. The goal of IRB review is to clinch that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects will be adequately protected in the pursuit of the proposed research 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 process and outcomes of subject option are fair (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that there are acceptable plans for obtaining informed consent.
TABLE i ]
Selected US Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)
| Regulation | Requirements |
| Membership (45CFR.46 107; 21CFR.56.107) | At least 5 members of varying backgrounds, both sexes, and > i profession |
| At to the lowest degree 1 scientific member, one nonscientific member, and i 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 interest | |
| Advertizement 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 problems, risks, and noncompliance | |
| Quorum of majority at convened meetings. Approval requires majority vote | |
| Review (45CFR.46 109; 21CFR.56.109) | Dominance to approve, require modifications of, or disapprove enquiry |
| Require informed consent and documentation (or corroborate a waiver 1 ) | |
| 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 any, and the importance of the expected cognition; discipline option is equitable and attention to vulnerable populations; informed consent volition exist sought and documented; adequate provisions for monitoring; adequate provisions to protect confidentiality; boosted safeguards for subjects vulnerable to coercion or undue influence |
| Potency (45CFR.46. 113; 21CFR.56.113) | Institutional officials cannot approve research that is disapproved by the IRB (45CFR.46 only) |
| The IRB can suspend or terminate research for serious damage 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 The states
Recognizing that review past impartial others might mitigate alien differences in the ethical responsibilities of doctor-investigators to research subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, help to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, James Shannon, Dr., Manager of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in 1965 proposed that all NIH research involving homo subjects exist evaluated past an impartial console of peers to ensure its ethical integrity. His idea derived, at least in office, 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 salubrious volunteers. ane In 1966, US Public Health Service policy requirements for upstanding review, which were expanded to all Department of Health Education and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) inquiry by 1971, were non well enforced. i Regulations for the protection of human subjects for DHHS, published in 1974 (45CFR.46), included a requirement for grouping ethics review and the term "institutional review board" was introduced. The World Medical Clan also introduced review by an independent committee for oversight of science and ethics into the 1975 revision of the Proclamation of Helsinki. 8 The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by the US Congress later on revelations of the US Public Health Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Study which explicated upstanding principles underlying the conduct of homo subjects research. 9 The Commission's contributions, including integration of the Belmont principles, were incorporated into updated The states regulations in 1981. The 1981 DHHS regulations were subsequently adopted by 16 federal agencies (non including the FDA) in 1991 equally the Mutual Dominion. The FDA required an IRB first in 1981 (Title 21 Lawmaking of Federal Regulations, part 56), although some investigators funded by pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. x The most extensive proposed changes to the Common Dominion since 1991 were issued past the DHHS in an Advance Find of Proposed Rule Making in 2011 in an effort to enhance protections and efficiency. 11,12 Public comments were solicited and a Detect of Proposed Rulemaking is nether evolution, but as of this writing has not been published (Fig i).
Timeline of regulations and guidance regarding IRB review. ANPRM = Accelerate Observe of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = U.s. Department of Health, Didactics, and Welfare; DHHS = Department of Wellness and Human Services; FDA = United states of america Food and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Health.
US regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart Eastward and 21CFR.56.106 require IRBs to exist registered with the DHHS Role of Human Enquiry Protections (OHRP), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Common Rule. Research institutions that receive DHHS funds file with OHRP an balls that the institution will comply with federal regulations, called a Federal Wide Assurance. xiii Each assurance has to include at least one internal or external IRB registered with OHRP. The FDA requires registration of IRBs merely does not crave prospective assurances of compliance; sponsors and investigators include evidence of IRB review when they submit data to the FDA.
Changes to Enquiry
At the time that IRBs were codified in regulation, single-site clinical research was the predominant image. Advances in knowledge, technology, and resources over the subsequent decades have significantly changed the face of research. 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, often with sites in multiple countries. 16 In addition to multicenter and multinational research, IRBs review, for instance, proposals for inquiry with stored samples and data, prison cell-based and stalk prison cell therapies, emergency research, social science research, and customs-based research. IRBs operate under the same regulatory structure and use 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 as contract enquiry organizations, data and safety monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, amidst others.
Changes to IRBs
Concurrently, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs accept connected to increase. Well-nigh research institutions, universities, and health-care facilities have at least one IRB, and the majority has more 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, training of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, among others. IRBs practice indeed have responsibility for reviewing the science to assess the soundness of the design and the risks and benefits of the proposed research, even so, many institutions have a split up scientific review procedure that precedes and complements IRB review.
Dissatisfaction and concern about what is perceived as an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has too mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB system as dysfunctional and "more than concerned with protecting the institution than research participants." nineteen Some claim that IRBs are overburdened 20 and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about burden: excessive paperwork, inflexible interpretation of regulatory requirements, attending to inconsequential details, and "mission pitter-patter"—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to accept little to do with protection of research participants. 21 Fright of regulatory admonition has fueled a focus on compliance with regulations. 22 Some perceive the excessive or "hyper" regulation as seriously affecting or stifling inquiry 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 inquiry for what seem like minor modifications. 25 The public hears nearly problems and fears that research might be dangerous and existing protections ineffective or inadequate. 26,27
Charles McCarthy, the commencement director of the US Office for Protection from Enquiry Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, "[IRBs] have go more insightful and sophisticated…But unless [the Human Enquiry Protection System] is considered to exist an evolving and expanding machinery, adapting to the problems of each period of history, it is in danger of becoming fossilized and ineffective." 28 Flexibility and adjustability are of import characteristics not ordinarily 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 past Cohen and Lynch, 29 the system is "ripe for a major course correction."
Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges
Recognition of the need for a robust system of protecting human enquiry subjects inside the irresolute research landscape has led to various proposals for reform and suggestions for alternative models. 30‐35
Reform proposals offering changes to address some of the various factors that are problematic for IRBs and for those who use them. Yet, reform efforts have been somewhat paralyzed by the tension between those who detect the current system inadequate and those who notice it as well 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 result in inconsistencies that bias the science. 38,39 Additional reasons for because reform of the electric current oversight system include inherent conflicts of involvement, inadequate resources, the emergence of new research methodologies, and bereft expertise of members, amidst others. forty IRBs also grapple with how to respond to evolving research methods, and high contour cases in which regulators disagree with or disapprove of IRB decisions tin can fuel uncertainty and anxiety. 41,42
Various systems of pre-IRB review have gained traction as a manner to improve IRB efficiency: Major issues and gaps can be identified and corrected through prereview before an IRB sees the proposal. Institutions are besides adopting a framework that more than explicitly recognizes the essential roles of the institution, investigators, and research teams in improver 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 (Tabular array 2). 44‐53 Proposed revisions to the Mutual Rule include a recommendation for a single IRB of tape for domestic multisite trials. 9 More 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 key 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, price structures, and incentives, and doubt about the relative merits of proposed models. 56
Table two ]
Alternative Models for IRB Review
| Type | Explanation | Examples |
| Local IRB review | Single-site study or review at each site for unmarried site or multisite studies | Nearly research institutions take ≥ 1 IRB at the site that review research conducted at that site. |
| Shared IRB review | ||
| Reliance | An institution formally "relies" on the IRB of another institution for review of a detail study or set of studies. | Increasingly ≥ 1 site partner with another IRB through a reliance understanding. See, for instance NIAID, CHOP, and others. |
| Shared review | Concurrent regional or central and local review | Indian Health Service |
| Centralized review | ||
| Central IRB | Central IRB established to review all studies of a blazon, each site accepts the fundamental review | National Cancer Institute's Key IRB (2 developed, 1 pediatric, 1 cancer prevention and command) |
| American Academy of Family Physicians National Enquiry Network IRB | ||
| Veterans Administration central IRB | ||
| A grouping of institutions form an alliance and create a new central IRB to serve as IRB for group. | Biomedical Inquiry 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 equally the central IRB for all sites of a network. | ||
| One of the existing NIH intramural IRBs is designated every bit the central PHERRB for public health emergencies. | ||
| Independent/commercial | A freestanding IRB (not role of an institution) is employed to review unmarried 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 amid study sites. | National Children's Study (NICHD) |
Need for Evidence
Reform proposals often recognize the need for information about what works and for creative and testable ways of achieving the appropriate combination of protecting the rights and welfare of participants with meaningful and efficient IRB review that promotes high quality, relevant, and timely inquiry. Testify nigh how well IRBs are functioning, how effective they are, and how they could exist more efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies describe IRB structure, process, or outcomes and bear witness that IRB judgments are inconsistent, equally is their application of a standard ready of regulations. 58,59 Practices and decisions vary between and within IRBs frequently without justification, including determinations about adventure level, inclusion criteria, and the appropriateness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55,60 Despite complaints most inconsistency, independence and local evaluation make some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, it is difficult to observe a study or to place metrics able to measure how effective IRBs are at ensuring the ethical conduct of research or protecting inquiry 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 arrangement: growing requirements and costs, 63,64 bureaucratic burden, vague goals, and express bear witness of effectiveness.
"The available testify 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, there is no empirical evidence that IRB oversight has any benefit whatsoever—let alone do good that exceeds the cost." 65
Both normative analysis and empirical evidence are needed to understand how to improve the current organisation and optimize protections for contemporary research. If the goal is primarily to protect research participants from risk, for example, then more than analysis of what risks count and more than empirical evidence nearly enquiry risks would provide direction for how we 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 Science: Protecting Human Participants in Human being Subjects Enquiry, the President's Committee recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of human subjects enquiry "develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of homo field of study protections and expand support for enquiry related to the ethical and social considerations of human subject protections." 67
Centralizing IRB Review
Primarily driven by concerns about redundant review, burden, and filibuster, much attention has been given to the thought of unmarried or central IRB review for multisite studies every bit an culling to local IRB review at each site. Multiple reviews also have the possibility of jeopardizing the scientific discipline past introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted by federal regulations 68 to utilise arrangements that centralize or share reviews, yet relatively few employ these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations have recommended single or central review for multisite studies. x,28‐31,35 Lingering resistance to adopting fundamental or unmarried review for multisite trials appears to be based on concerns well-nigh the importance of local context, local accountability and liability, discomfort with relinquishing command over the review, incertitude nigh the quality of review by other IRBs, and logistical concerns such as cost-sharing. xxx,54 There is a paucity of data evaluating how single or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resources use, or efficiency.
Conclusions
IRBs have an important role in protecting man research participants from possible damage and exploitation. Contained review past an IRB or equivalent is an important function of a system of protections aiming to ensure that ethical principles are followed and that acceptable and appropriate safeguards are in place to protect subjects' rights and welfare while they contribute to ethically and scientifically rigorous enquiry. Over the iv decades since IRBs were codified into regulations, IRB review and oversight has developed and matured as part of a robust organisation that provides "substantial protections for the wellness, rights, and welfare of research subjects." 69 Notwithstanding, during that same period, research methods and opportunities accept 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 have not changed, their implementation and actualization requires refinement and accommodation to respond to changing scientific and social contexts. Information, creativity, regulatory flexibility, and continued dialogue are needed to optimize the implementation of principles and to assistance shape the futurity structure, system, processes, and outcomes of review and oversight by IRBs and related players. These efforts will support progress in clinical inquiry, public trust in the enterprise, and protection of the participants that make enquiry possible.
Acknowledgments
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no function in the pattern of the report, the collection and analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript.
Other contributions: Views expressed are the writer's and practise not necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the Section of Health and Homo Services. The author is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, MD, PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.
ABBREVIATIONS
| DHHS | Department of Health and Homo Services |
| FDA | Us Food and Drug Assistants |
| IRB | institutional review lath |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| OHRP | Role of Homo Research Protections |
Footnotes
FUNDING/Support: Piece of work on this article was supported by the Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.
Reproduction of this commodity is prohibited without written permission from the American Higher of Chest Physicians. Run across online for more details.
References
i. 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 Enquiry Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:541-550. [Google Scholar]
4. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed]
five. Usa Code of Federal Regulations. Championship 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for industry and FDA staff FDA credence of foreign clinical studies not conducted under an IND frequently asked questions.US Nutrient and Drug Administration website. http://world wide web.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed Apr 12, 2015.
6. US Department of Wellness and Human Services. Office of Man Research Protections (OHRP). International compilation of man subjects standards. The states Department of Wellness and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March one, 2015.
8. Riis P. Letter from...Kingdom of denmark. Planning of scientific-upstanding committees. BMJ. 1977;2(6080):173-174. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Study: Upstanding Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Homo Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Department of Health Instruction and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication Bone 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board function. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Hunker R, Prevarication R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:552-559. [Google Scholar]
eleven. Office of Human being Subjects Protection. Advanced detect of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Mutual Rule. US Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. 2011. Accessed Feb 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]
xiii. Office of Human Research Protections. IRBs and assurances. US Department of Wellness and Man Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html. Accessed February 2, 2015.
14. Office of Budget: appropriations history by institute/center (1938 to present). National Institutes of Health, Role 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 primal institutional review boards the solution? The National Centre, Lung, and Blood Found Working Group's study on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Association for the Accreditation of Human being Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Human Research Protection Programme Functioning. Washington, DC: Association for the Accreditation of Human Inquiry Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar]
nineteen. Fost Due north, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects inquiry. JAMA. 2007;298(18):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 globe. Scientific discipline. 2006;312(5779):1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Weil C, Rooney L, McNeilly P, Cooper K, Borror Chiliad, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight letters: an update. IRB. 2010;32(2):1-six. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Infectious Diseases Club of America. Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(iii):328-335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on enquiry imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599-627. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Whitney SN, Alcser K, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Chief investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;5(ii):68-72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lemonick M, Goldstein A, Park A. Human being guinea pigs. Time. April 22, 2002. [Google Scholar]
27. Gilbert S. Trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(two):14-xviii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. 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; 2008:550. [Google Scholar]
29. Cohen IG, Lynch HF, eds. Introduction. Human Subjects Inquiry Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Printing; 2014:2. [Google Scholar]
xxx. Association of American Medical Colleges.Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Section of Health and Man Services; 2005. [Google Scholar]
31. Summary of the 2006 National Briefing 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 Jan 5, 2015.
32. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group'south report on optimizing the IRB procedure. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Federman D, Hanna 1000, Rodriguez L, eds. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Printing; 2003. [Google Scholar]
34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS. Research ideals. To protect human subjects, review what was washed, 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 man enquiry 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. Utilise 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. Homo-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, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):282-291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Wilfond BS, Magnus D, Antommaria AH, et al. The OHRP and SUPPORT. North Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):e36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Fanaroff JM. Ethical support for surfactant, positive 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, Hunker 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. Due north Engl J Med. 2002;346(18):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. National Cancer Establish Central IRB Initiative. National Cancer Institute website. https://ncicirb.org/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
46. Graham DG, Spano MS, Manning B. The IRB challenge for practise-based inquiry: strategies of the American Academy of Family unit Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Board Fam Med. 2007;xx(2):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Function of Inquiry and Development. VA fundamental institutional review lath (IRB). Us Section of Veterans Diplomacy website. http://world wide web.inquiry.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 3, 2015.
49. Kaufmann P, O'Rourke PP. Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):321-323. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Slutsman J, Hirschfeld Southward. A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: a report on the National Children'southward Study federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(vi):1-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Request for comments on the draft NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site enquiry. National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/observe-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html. Published Dec 3, 2014. Accessed March 2, 2015.
56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using key IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(1):e54999. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are actually working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;9:6. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Abbott 50, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(one):3-19. [PMC complimentary 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 article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards employ the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA. 2004;291(4):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human enquiry participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Farther analysis and recommendations: recommendation 5. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf. 2011. Accessed February ten, 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(four):662-666. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Sugarman J, Getz One thousand, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ideals. The toll of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. North Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1825-1827. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Hyman D. Institutional review boards: is this the least worst nosotros tin practise? Northwestern University Constabulary Review. 2007;101(2):749-774. [Google Scholar]
66. Taylor P. Introduction to office II—protection of vulnerable populations. In: Cohen Chiliad, 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 here courtesy of American College of Chest Physicians
figueroagoold2000.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631034/
0 Response to "Which of the Following Statements Best Describes the Purpose of Institutional Review Boards (Irbs)?"
Post a Comment