Literature DB >> 33231115

Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.

David B Resnik1.   

Abstract

A standard of evidence is a rule or norm pertaining to the type or amount of evidence that is required to prove or support a conclusion. Standards of evidence play an important role in institutional review board (IRB) decision-making, but they are not mentioned in the federal research regulations. In this article, I examine IRB standards of evidence from a normative, epistemological perspective and argue that IRBs should rely on empirical evidence for making decisions, but that other sources of evidence, such as intuition, emotion, and rational reflection, can also play an important role in decision-making, because IRB decisions involve an ethical component which is not reducible to science. I also argue that an IRB should approve a study only if it has clear and convincing evidence that the study meets all the approval criteria and other relevant, ethical considerations; and that for studies which expose healthy volunteers to significant risks, an IRB should require that evidence be more than clear and convincing as a condition for approval. Additional empirical research is needed on how IRBs use evidence to make decisions and how standards of evidence influence IRB decision-making at the individual and group level.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Institutional review boards; decision-making; empirical evidence; intuition; standards of evidence

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33231115      PMCID: PMC8184880          DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1855149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   3.057


  60 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine.

Authors:  Patricia B Burns; Rod J Rohrich; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Ethics of controlled human infection to address COVID-19.

Authors:  Seema K Shah; Franklin G Miller; Thomas C Darton; Devan Duenas; Claudia Emerson; Holly Fernandez Lynch; Euzebiusz Jamrozik; Nancy S Jecker; Dorcas Kamuya; Melissa Kapulu; Jonathan Kimmelman; Douglas MacKay; Matthew J Memoli; Sean C Murphy; Ricardo Palacios; Thomas L Richie; Meta Roestenberg; Abha Saxena; Katherine Saylor; Michael J Selgelid; Vina Vaswani; Annette Rid
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-05-07       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  The role of empirical research in bioethics.

Authors:  Alexander A Kon
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.229

6.  Paying Research Participants: The Outsized Influence of "Undue Influence".

Authors:  Emily A Largent; Holly Fernandez Lynch
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

7.  Which benefits of research participation count as 'direct'?

Authors:  Alexander Friedman; Emily Robbins; David Wendler
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2010-05-17       Impact factor: 1.898

8.  How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Research ethics committees: differences and moral judgement.

Authors:  Sarah J L Edwards; Richard Ashcroft; Simon Kirchin
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 1.898

10.  "Members of the same club": challenges and decisions faced by US IRBs in identifying and managing conflicts of interest.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

1.  Reimagining IRB review to incorporate a clear and convincing standard of evidence.

Authors:  E Smith; E E Anderson
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 2.622

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.