Literature DB >> 19841324

Costs and benefits of the national cancer institute central institutional review board.

Todd H Wagner1, Christine Murray, Jacquelyn Goldberg, Jeanne M Adler, Jeffrey Abrams.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) formed the Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) to conduct a single human subjects review for its multisite phase III oncology trials. The goal of this study was to assess whether NCI's CIRB was associated with lower effort, time, and cost in processing adult phase III oncology trials.
METHODS: We conducted an observational study and compared sites affiliated with the NCI CIRB to unaffiliated sites that used their local IRB for review. Oncology research staff and IRB staff were surveyed to understand effort and timing. Response rates were 60% and 42%, respectively. Analysis of these survey data yielded information on effort, timing, and costs. We combined these data with CIRB operational data to determine the net savings of the CIRB using a societal perspective.
RESULTS: CIRB affiliation was associated with faster reviews (33.9 calendar days faster on average), and 6.1 fewer hours of research staff effort. CIRB affiliation was associated with a savings of $717 per initial review. The estimated cost of running the CIRB was $161,000 per month. The CIRB yielded a net cost of approximately $55,000 per month from a societal perspective. Whether the CIRB results in higher or lower quality reviews was not assessed because there is no standard definition of review quality.
CONCLUSION: The CIRB was associated with decreases in investigator and IRB staff effort and faster protocol reviews, although savings would be higher if institutions used the CIRB as intended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19841324      PMCID: PMC2816001          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.2470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  10 in total

1.  A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials.

Authors:  Michaele C Christian; Jacquelyn L Goldberg; Jack Killen; Jeffrey S Abrams; Mary S McCabe; Joan K Mauer; Robert E Wittes
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-05-02       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Variations in institutional review board decisions for HIV quality of care studies: a potential source of study bias.

Authors:  C L Bennett; A M Sipler; J P Parada; M B Goetz; J A DeHovitz; R A Weinstein
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 3.731

3.  Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research.

Authors:  Jon Mark Hirshon; Scott D Krugman; Michael D Witting; Jon P Furuno; M Rhona Limcangco; Andre R Perisse; Elizabeth K Rasch
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  The cost of institutional review board procedures in multicenter observational research.

Authors:  Keith Humphreys; Jodie Trafton; Todd H Wagner
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-07-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Economies of scale in institutional review boards.

Authors:  Todd H Wagner; Anne Marie E Cruz; Gary L Chadwick
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 6.  Self-reported utilization of health care services: improving measurement and accuracy.

Authors:  Aman Bhandari; Todd Wagner
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.929

7.  Processes to activate phase III clinical trials in a Cooperative Oncology Group: the Case of Cancer and Leukemia Group B.

Authors:  David M Dilts; Alan B Sandler; Matthew Baker; Steven K Cheng; Stephen L George; Kathleen S Karas; Stephen McGuire; Gourija S Menon; Jason Reusch; Debbie Sawyer; Maren Scoggins; Amy Wu; Kai Zhou; Richard L Schilsky
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2006-10-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Development of clinical trials in a cooperative group setting: the eastern cooperative oncology group.

Authors:  David M Dilts; Alan Sandler; Steven Cheng; Joshua Crites; Lori Ferranti; Amy Wu; Robert Gray; Jean MacDonald; Donna Marinucci; Robert Comis
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards.

Authors:  W J Burman; R R Reves; D L Cohn; R T Schooley
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-01-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research?

Authors:  Seema Shah; Amy Whittle; Benjamin Wilfond; Gary Gensler; David Wendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

  10 in total
  37 in total

1.  Canada's new ethical guidelines for research with humans: a critique and comparison with the United States.

Authors:  Joseph Millum
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system: need for a national-level institutional research ethics board and consent standards.

Authors:  Jyoti A Kotecha; Donna Manca; Anita Lambert-Lanning; Karim Keshavjee; Neil Drummond; Marshall Godwin; Michelle Greiver; Wayne Putnam; Marie-Thérèse Lussier; Richard Birtwhistle
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century.

Authors:  Kathy L Hudson; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Role of academic medical centers in cell-based therapeutic clinical trials.

Authors:  David H Rowitch; Bernard Lo
Journal:  Transl Res       Date:  2011-01-25       Impact factor: 7.012

Review 5.  Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges.

Authors:  Christine Grady
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Proposed centralization of trial oversight stirs mixed reaction.

Authors:  Meredith Wadman
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

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

8.  Time required for institutional review board review at one Veterans Affairs medical center.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Barbara H Hanusa; Roslyn A Stone; Bruce S Ling; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  Time required to review research protocols at 10 Veterans Affairs Institutional Review Boards.

Authors:  Patrick R Varley; Ulrike Feske; Shasha Gao; Roslyn A Stone; Sijian Zhang; Robert Monte; Robert M Arnold; Daniel E Hall
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 2.192

10.  Protocol Development Program: A Novel Approach to Overcoming Barriers to Clinical Research.

Authors:  Tracey J Miller; Vali S Sevastita; Doreen G Chaitt; Jorge A Tavel; Jerome F Pierson
Journal:  Monitor (Assoc Clin Pharmacol)       Date:  2013-02-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.