Literature DB >> 16226962

Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study.

Catherine C Vick1, Kelly R Finan, Catarina Kiefe, Leigh Neumayer, Mary T Hawn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Administration is an ideal setting for multisite studies; however, individual VA Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is necessary. This study examines the burden of multisite IRB approval on a Health Services Research and Development (HSRD) ventral hernia outcomes observational study.
METHODS: Data gathered on the IRB process per site included time required for application completion, staff training and compliance, IRB affiliation (VA or university), approval status, and time to IRB approval. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine differences in median times for application completion and approval. Financial and temporal expenses were calculated.
RESULTS: Significant differences were found in median time to complete applications by IRB affiliation (P < .01) and median time to approval by changes required to the consent letter (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The IRB process for a multisite observational study is expensive in both time and money. A VA national IRB for multisite studies would significantly decrease the financial and temporal burden for observational studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16226962     DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  24 in total

1.  Leveraging semantic knowledge in IRB databases to improve translation science.

Authors:  John F Hurdle; Jeffery Botkin; Thomas C Rindflesch
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2007-10-11

2.  Protocols in expedited review: tackling the workload of ethics committees.

Authors:  Michael Wolzt; Christiane Druml; Daniela Leitner; Ernst A Singer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2008-11-01       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

Authors:  George Silberman; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.911

4.  How good does the science have to be in proposals submitted to Institutional Review Boards? An interview study of Institutional Review Board personnel.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 2.486

5.  Research ethics. To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  CLARA: an integrated clinical research administration system.

Authors:  Jiang Bian; Mengjun Xie; William Hogan; Laura Hutchins; Umit Topaloglu; Cheryl Lane; Jennifer Holland; Thomas Wells
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 4.497

7.  The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time.

Authors:  Ryan Spellecy; Ann Marie Eve; Emily R Connors; Reza Shaker; David C Clark
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study.

Authors:  Carmen C Polito; Sushma K Cribbs; Greg S Martin; Terence O'Keeffe; Dan Herr; Todd W Rice; Jonathan E Sevransky
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 7.598

9.  Institutional review board and regulatory solutions in the dental PBRN.

Authors:  Gregg H Gilbert; Vibeke Qvist; Sheila D Moore; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Valeria V Gordan; O Dale Williams
Journal:  J Public Health Dent       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.821

10.  Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial.

Authors:  Brian T Helfand; Anne K Mongiu; Claus G Roehrborn; Robert F Donnell; Reginald Bruskewitz; Steven A Kaplan; John W Kusek; Laura Coombs; Kevin T McVary
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-04-16       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.