Literature DB >> 16448960

Feasibility of a national fatal asthma registry: more evidence of IRB variation in evaluation of a standard protocol.

Sunday Clark1, Andrea J Pelletier, Barry E Brenner, David M Lang, Robert C Strunk, Carlos A Camargo.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Approximately 4,500 Americans die from asthma each year. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of creating a national fatal asthma registry to better understand this problem.Methods. Using a standard questionnaire, 18 state vital statistics departments and 22 medical examiners offices were contacted in 2001 to assess availability of fatal asthma data. Funding was obtained in 2002 to implement a fatal asthma registry. During 2003, the project was put on hold due to uncertainty about the impact of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The project was revived in 2004 when a standard protocol was submitted to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in four different states.
RESULTS: All vital statistics departments reported that they were able to identify the decedent's name and demographic characteristics. Contact information for a relative or doctor was available in all states. Demographic characteristics and autopsy findings were available from 100% of the medical examiners offices. However, IRBs at the four institutions required major protocol modifications, including language and approach for contacting next of kin.
CONCLUSION: Availability of demographic and clinical data across states is consistent. The creation of a national fatal asthma registry appears feasible, but different IRB interpretations of what is permissible preclude a standard approach across states.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16448960     DOI: 10.1080/00102200500446896

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Asthma        ISSN: 0277-0903            Impact factor:   2.515


  7 in total

1.  Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  John D Lantos; David Wendler; Edward Septimus; Sarita Wahba; Rosemary Madigan; Geraldine Bliss
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 2.  Ethical issues in using data from quality management programs.

Authors:  David R Nerenz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.134

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

Review 4.  A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn.

Authors:  Lura Abbott; Christine Grady
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Investigating asthma deaths among children and young adults: Michigan Asthma Mortality Review.

Authors:  Kenneth D Rosenman; Elizabeth A Hanna; Sarah K Lyon-Callo; Elizabeth A Wasilevich
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

6.  Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial.

Authors:  A R Stark; J E Tyson; P L Hibberd
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 2.521

7.  The paucity of ethical analysis in allergology.

Authors:  Jason Behrmann
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.406

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.