Literature DB >> 22565581

Frustrations in benchmarking IRBs: reflections after analyzing the United States' IRB registration database.

David M Vulcano1.   

Abstract

Like any organization committed to quality, institutional review boards (IRBs) desire to benchmark themselves with their colleagues. In order to do so, there is a need for high-quality, well-validated, and well-populated datasets designed for this purpose. Unlike other areas of healthcare, there are no such aggregated databases of IRB information. Analyzing the largest repository of IRB information--the United States' IRB registration database consisting of approximately 4,500 IRBs--yields some useful results, but given that this database was designed as a registry and not for benchmarking, its use is limited to benchmarking the most basic demographics. If members of the IRB community want to benchmark themselves relative to their colleagues, they will have to look at how other healthcare operations have successfully done it (through private and/or government efforts) and invest the time and resources required to obtain meaningful data.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22565581     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.2.34

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  2 in total

1.  Call for a pan-Canadian approach to ethics review in Canada.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Karine Morin; Laurel Evans; Holly Longstaff
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis.

Authors:  Kimberly Shoenbill; Yiqiang Song; Nichelle L Cobb; Marc K Drezner; Eneida A Mendonca
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2017-04-26
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.