H Silverman1, S C Hull, J Sugarman. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. hsilverm@medicine.umaryland.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Institutional review boards (IRBs) are given discretion to interpret and apply the federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of the variability among different IRBs on their approved research practices and informed consent forms within the context of a multicenter trial that used a common protocol. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of survey information and informed consent forms. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen IRBs from the institutions participating in a multicenter trial comparing lower vs. traditional tidal volume ventilation in patients with acute lung injury. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of survey information on IRBs' approved research practices. Analysis of informed consent forms for the presence and the adequacy of description of each basic element of informed consent specified in the federal regulations. Reading levels of informed consent forms. MAIN RESULTS: Surveys and IRB-approved consent forms were obtained from all of the contacted IRBs (n = 16). Variability was observed among several of the research practices; one IRB waived the requirement for informed consent, five IRBs permitted telephone consent, and three IRBs allowed prisoners to be enrolled. Three consent forms contained all of the basic elements of informed consent outlined in the federal regulations, and 13 forms had varying numbers of these elements absent (six forms without one element, four without two, one without three, and two without four). Reading levels of the consent forms ranged from grades 8.2 to 13.4 (mean +/- sd was 11.6 +/- 1.2 grade level). CONCLUSIONS: Within a multicenter trial, IRBs reviewing a common protocol varied in several of their approved research practices and in the extent to which the basic elements of informed consent were included in their consent forms.
BACKGROUND: Institutional review boards (IRBs) are given discretion to interpret and apply the federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects in research. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of the variability among different IRBs on their approved research practices and informed consent forms within the context of a multicenter trial that used a common protocol. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of survey information and informed consent forms. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen IRBs from the institutions participating in a multicenter trial comparing lower vs. traditional tidal volume ventilation in patients with acute lung injury. MEASUREMENTS: Analysis of survey information on IRBs' approved research practices. Analysis of informed consent forms for the presence and the adequacy of description of each basic element of informed consent specified in the federal regulations. Reading levels of informed consent forms. MAIN RESULTS: Surveys and IRB-approved consent forms were obtained from all of the contacted IRBs (n = 16). Variability was observed among several of the research practices; one IRB waived the requirement for informed consent, five IRBs permitted telephone consent, and three IRBs allowed prisoners to be enrolled. Three consent forms contained all of the basic elements of informed consent outlined in the federal regulations, and 13 forms had varying numbers of these elements absent (six forms without one element, four without two, one without three, and two without four). Reading levels of the consent forms ranged from grades 8.2 to 13.4 (mean +/- sd was 11.6 +/- 1.2 grade level). CONCLUSIONS: Within a multicenter trial, IRBs reviewing a common protocol varied in several of their approved research practices and in the extent to which the basic elements of informed consent were included in their consent forms.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bradford B Worrall; Donna T Chen; Robert D Brown; Thomas G Brott; James F Meschia Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2005-04-25 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Gail E Henderson; Amy L Corneli; David B Mahoney; Daniel K Nelson; Charles Mwansambo Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Bradley D Freeman; Kevin Butler; Dragana Bolcic-Jankovic; Brian R Clarridge; Carie R Kennedy; Jessica LeBlanc; Sara Chandros Hull Journal: Chest Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Alice M Mascette; Gordon R Bernard; Donna Dimichele; Jesse A Goldner; Robert Harrington; Paul A Harris; Hilary S Leeds; Thomas A Pearson; Bonnie Ramsey; Todd H Wagner Journal: Acad Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Michael P Diamond; Esther Eisenberg; Hao Huang; Christos Coutifaris; Richard S Legro; Karl R Hansen; Anne Z Steiner; Marcelle Cedars; Kurt Barnhart; Tracy Ziolek; Tracey R Thomas; Kate Maurer; Stephen A Krawetz; Robert A Wild; J C Trussell; Nanette Santoro; Heping Zhang Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 2.486