Literature DB >> 26827623

IRB reliance: An informatics approach.

Jihad S Obeid1, Randall W Alexander2, Stephanie M Gentilin2, Brigette White2, Christine B Turley3, Kathleen T Brady2, Leslie A Lenert2.   

Abstract

Multi-site Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of clinical research projects is an important but complex and time-consuming activity that is hampered by disparate non-interoperable computer systems for management of IRB applications. This paper describes our work toward harmonizing the workflow and data model of IRB applications through the development of a software-as-a-service shared-IRB platform for five institutions in South Carolina. Several commonalities and differences were recognized across institutions and a core data model that included the data elements necessary for IRB applications across all institutions was identified. We extended and modified the system to support collaborative reviews of IRB proposals within routine workflows of participating IRBs. Overall about 80% of IRB application content was harmonized across all institutions, establishing the foundation for a streamlined cooperative review and reliance. Since going live in 2011, 49 applications that underwent cooperative reviews over a three year period were approved, with the majority involving 2 out of 5 institutions. We believe this effort will inform future work on a common IRB data model that will allow interoperability through a federated approach for sharing IRB reviews and decisions with the goal of promoting reliance across institutions in the translational research community at large.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical research; Data model; IRB; Informatics; Reliance; Workflow

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26827623      PMCID: PMC4837001          DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.01.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Inform        ISSN: 1532-0464            Impact factor:   6.317


  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.  Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  T O Stair; C R Reed; M S Radeos; G Koski; C A Camargo
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Cooperative research ethics review boards: a win-win solution?

Authors:  Greg Koski; Jessica Aungst; Joel Kupersmith; Kenneth Getz; David Rimoin
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2005 May-Jun

4.  Standardizing data exchange for clinical research protocols and case report forms: An assessment of the suitability of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Operational Data Model (ODM).

Authors:  Vojtech Huser; Chandan Sastry; Matthew Breymaier; Asma Idriss; James J Cimino
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 5.  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

6.  A domain analysis model for eIRB systems: addressing the weak link in clinical research informatics.

Authors:  Shan He; Scott P Narus; Julio C Facelli; Lee Min Lau; Jefferey R Botkin; John F Hurdle
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 6.317

7.  Regional ethics organizations for protection of human research participants.

Authors:  Anne Wood; Christine Grady; Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 53.440

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study.

Authors:  Rita McWilliams; Julie Hoover-Fong; Ada Hamosh; Suzanne Beck; Terri Beaty; Garry Cutting
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-16       Impact factor: 56.272

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.