Literature DB >> 20637931

Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years.

Monika Pogorzelska1, Patricia W Stone, Elizabeth Gross Cohn, Elaine Larson.   

Abstract

Although collaborative research across sites is essential to increase the statistical power and generalizability of research findings, the need to undergo multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews is a challenge. The purposes of this paper are to describe changes in the IRB submission process in 2 national multisite studies before and after the implementation of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy rule (2002 and 2008) and to discuss implications for policy and practice related to human subjects research. In the second study, there was a shorter mean approval time and reduced variability in the decision about the level of review, the mean number of pages per application doubled, and an increased proportion of IRBs required conflict of interest and data use agreements. Possible approaches to further enhance the efficiency and streamlining of the research review process are suggested. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20637931      PMCID: PMC2917109          DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2010.04.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nurs Outlook        ISSN: 0029-6554            Impact factor:   3.250


  28 in total

1.  What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research.

Authors:  P Wainwright; J Saunders
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers.

Authors:  Jeremy Sugarman; Kenneth Getz; Jeanne L Speckman; Margaret M Byrne; Jason Gerson; Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-04-28       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  What is the role of the research ethics committee? Paternalism, inducements, and harm in research ethics.

Authors:  E Garrard; A Dawson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  The costs of institutional review boards.

Authors:  Howard B Dickler; David Korn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research.

Authors:  Lee A Green; Julie C Lowery; Christine P Kowalski; Leon Wyszewianski
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes.

Authors:  Sarah M Greene; Ann M Geiger; Emily L Harris; Andrea Altschuler; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Mary B Barton; Sharon J Rolnick; Joann G Elmore; Suzanne Fletcher
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 7.  Research governance: panacea or problem?

Authors:  Ash Samanta; Jo Samanta
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.659

Review 8.  Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research.

Authors:  Leslie E Wolf; Janice Ferrara Walden; Bernard Lo
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals.

Authors:  Elaine Larson; Tiffany Bratts; Jack Zwanziger; Patricia Stone
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.176

Review 10.  Research governance: where did it come from, what does it mean?

Authors:  Sara Shaw; Petra M Boynton; Trisha Greenhalgh
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 18.000

View more
  11 in total

1.  Navigating the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Process for Pharmacy-Related Research.

Authors:  Marjorie Shaw Phillips; Osama Abdelghany; Susan Johnston; Rachel Rarus; Jennifer Austin-Szwak; Craig Kirkwood
Journal:  Hosp Pharm       Date:  2017-02

2.  Expanding research to provide an evidence base for nutritional interventions for the management of inborn errors of metabolism.

Authors:  Kathryn M Camp; Michele A Lloyd-Puryear; Lynne Yao; Stephen C Groft; Melissa A Parisi; Andrew Mulberg; Rashmi Gopal-Srivastava; Stephen Cederbaum; Gregory M Enns; Abby G Ershow; Dianne M Frazier; John Gohagan; Cary Harding; R Rodney Howell; Karen Regan; Peter W Stacpoole; Charles Venditti; Jerry Vockley; Michael Watson; Paul M Coates
Journal:  Mol Genet Metab       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 4.797

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.  Increasing burden of institutional review in multicenter clinical trials of infertility: the Reproductive Medicine Network experience with the Pregnancy in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PPCOS) I and II studies.

Authors:  William D Schlaff; Heping Zhang; Michael P Diamond; Christos Coutifaris; Peter R Casson; Robert G Brzyski; Gregory M Christman; Kurt T Barnhart; J C Trussell; Stephen A Krawetz; Peter J Snyder; Dana Ohl; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Hao Huang; Richard S Legro
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 7.329

5.  Improving the Proficiency of Research Consent Administrators.

Authors:  Elaine L Larson; Rachel Lally; Gabriella Foe; Gabriela Joaquin; Dodi D Meyer; Elizabeth G Cohn
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 4.689

6.  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

7.  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

8.  How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research.

Authors:  Laura A Petersen; Kate Simpson; Richard Sorelle; Tracy Urech; Supicha Sookanan Chitwood
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Ulrike Feske; Barbara H Hanusa; Bruce S Ling; Roslyn A Stone; Shasha Gao; Galen E Switzer; Aram Dobalian; Michael J Fine; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2016-06-23

10.  The IRB structure and medical research reform.

Authors:  Julie Babyar
Journal:  Clin Transl Med       Date:  2018-04-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.