Dpes Adding an Adoleescent to Research Require Irb Review
Chest. 2015 Nov; 148(5): 1148–1155.
Institutional Review Boards
Purpose and Challenges
Received 2015 Mar 23; Accepted 2015 Apr 30.
Abstruse
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or inquiry ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for homo inquiry. IRBs were codification in U.s.a. regulation but over three decades agone and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the organisation of IRB review and oversight. Prove of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without articulate evidence of effectiveness at protecting homo subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many culling models are currently existence tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attending and testify. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and examination review and oversight models that provide acceptable and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for electric current and hereafter research.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or equivalent bodies provide a core protection for human being participants in biomedical and behavioral research in the United States and > 80 other countries around the globe. 1 IRBs are charged with providing an independent evaluation that proposed research is ethically acceptable, checking clinical investigators' potential biases, and evaluating compliance with regulations and laws designed to protect human subjects.
Independent review of clinical research by an IRB is required for United states of america studies funded by the Department of Health and Human being Services (DHHS) and other US federal agencies, every bit well as for inquiry testing interventions—such as drugs, biologics, and devices—that are under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Table 1 ii,3 ). The states research institutions tin and often do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their human subjects research. Enquiry conducted outside of the United states of america but funded by the US government is subject to the aforementioned US federal regulations and and then requires IRB review or equivalent protections. 4 Research conducted outside of the U.s.a., non under an investigational new drug that submits information to the FDA for a new drug or biologic license application, must comply with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which include review and approval by an contained review committee and informed consent. 5 Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions around the world also require review past an contained research ideals committee or IRB. six Regulatory bodies in the European Union, Nippon, Us, Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries, among others, follow Skilful Clinical Exercise guidelines such as those delineated by the International Briefing on Harmonisation, which require approval by an independent ideals commission or IRB. vii IRBs or enquiry ethics committees, composed of a group of people independent of the specific enquiry, review proposed research plans and related documents earlier a written report tin can brainstorm and then periodically (usually annually) for the written report duration. The goal of IRB review is to assure that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects volition be fairly protected in the pursuit of the proposed enquiry study. To be ethically acceptable and comply with regulatory requirements, the IRB determines that risks to subjects are minimized and reasonable in relation to the importance of the noesis the written report is expected to produce, that the process and outcomes of subject selection are off-white (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that there are adequate plans for obtaining informed consent.
Table 1 ]
Selected The states Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)
| Regulation | Requirements |
| Membership (45CFR.46 107; 21CFR.56.107) | At least five members of varying backgrounds, both sexes, and > i profession |
| At to the lowest degree ane scientific fellow member, 1 nonscientific fellow member, and 1 unaffiliated fellow member | |
| Members sufficiently qualified through diverse experience and expertise to safeguard subjects' rights and welfare and to evaluate inquiry acceptability related to laws, regulations, institutional commitments, and professional standards | |
| At to the lowest degree i member knowledgeable about whatsoever regularly researched vulnerable groups | |
| Members report and recusal for conflicts of interest | |
| Advertizement hoc experts every bit needed | |
| Functions/operations (45CFR.46 108; 21CFR.56.108) | Follow written procedures for initial and continuing review and for any changes and amendments |
| Written procedures for reporting unanticipated problems, risks, and noncompliance | |
| Quorum of bulk at convened meetings. Blessing requires majority vote | |
| Review (45CFR.46 109; 21CFR.56.109) | Authority to approve, crave modifications of, or disapprove inquiry |
| Require informed consent and documentation (or approve a waiver 1 ) | |
| Notify investigators in writing | |
| At least annual standing review | |
| Criteria for approval (45CFR.46 111; 21CFR.56.111) | IRB should determine that risks are minimized; risks are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, and the importance of the expected noesis; subject option is equitable and attention to vulnerable populations; informed consent volition be sought and documented; acceptable provisions for monitoring; adequate provisions to protect confidentiality; additional safeguards for subjects vulnerable to coercion or undue influence |
| Authority (45CFR.46. 113; 21CFR.56.113) | Institutional officials cannot approve research that is disapproved by the IRB (45CFR.46 only) |
| The IRB can suspend or cease research for serious harm or noncompliance | |
| Records (45CFR.46. 115, 21CFR.56.115) | Records of enquiry proposals, meetings, actions, correspondence, members, and so forth |
History of IRBs in the U.s.
Recognizing that review past impartial others might mitigate alien differences in the ethical responsibilities of physician-investigators to enquiry subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, help to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, James Shannon, Physician, Director of the National Institutes of Wellness (NIH), in 1965 proposed that all NIH research involving human subjects be evaluated past an impartial console of peers to ensure its ethical integrity. His idea derived, at least in function, from a model that began at the NIH Clinical Center when information technology opened in 1953, which was a model of grouping peer review for research involving healthy volunteers. 1 In 1966, US Public Health Service policy requirements for ethical review, which were expanded to all Department of Wellness Didactics and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) enquiry by 1971, were non well enforced. ane Regulations for the protection of human subjects for DHHS, published in 1974 (45CFR.46), included a requirement for grouping ideals review and the term "institutional review lath" was introduced. The Earth Medical Association also introduced review by an contained committee for oversight of science and ethics into the 1975 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. 8 The National Commission for the Protection of Man Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by the United states of america Congress after revelations of the United states of america Public Health Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Study which explicated ethical principles underlying the conduct of human subjects research. 9 The Committee's contributions, including integration of the Belmont principles, were incorporated into updated US regulations in 1981. The 1981 DHHS regulations were after adopted by sixteen federal agencies (not including the FDA) in 1991 as the Common Rule. The FDA required an IRB outset in 1981 (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, office 56), although some investigators funded by pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. 10 The about extensive proposed changes to the Common Rule since 1991 were issued by the DHHS in an Accelerate Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 2011 in an endeavour to enhance protections and efficiency. 11,12 Public comments were solicited and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is under development, merely as of this writing has non been published (Fig one).
Timeline of regulations and guidance regarding IRB review. ANPRM = Advance Detect of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; DHHS = Department of Health and Man Services; FDA = Usa Food and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Health.
United states regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart Eastward and 21CFR.56.106 require IRBs to be registered with the DHHS Function of Human Research Protections (OHRP), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Common Rule. Research institutions that receive DHHS funds file with OHRP an assurance that the institution will comply with federal regulations, called a Federal Wide Assurance. xiii Each assurance has to include at least ane internal or external IRB registered with OHRP. The FDA requires registration of IRBs but does not crave prospective assurances of compliance; sponsors and investigators include evidence of IRB review when they submit data to the FDA.
Changes to Research
At the time that IRBs were codified in regulation, single-site clinical research was the predominant epitome. Advances in cognition, technology, and resources over the subsequent decades accept significantly changed the face of inquiry. Growth in public and private spending fourteen,15 as well as evolving scientific opportunities take created novel challenges for IRBs. The majority of clinical trials are now multisite, and some include > 100 sites, often with sites in multiple countries. 16 In addition to multicenter and multinational research, IRBs review, for instance, proposals for research with stored samples and information, cell-based and stalk cell therapies, emergency inquiry, social science research, and community-based research. IRBs operate under the same regulatory structure and use similar procedures despite a broad range of types of research posing disparate risks to subjects' rights and welfare. Furthermore, the complication of oversight has inverse with the development of new entities involved in clinical enquiry, such every bit contract research organizations, data and prophylactic monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, among others.
Changes to IRBs
Concurrently, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs have connected to increment. Most research institutions, universities, and health-intendance facilities have at least one IRB, and the majority has more one. 17 In addition, in that location are a number of contained or commercial IRBs. eighteen Increasingly, IRBs are tasked with responsibilities beyond those required by federal regulation, including, for example, review of conflicts of interest, compliance with privacy regulations, preparation of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, amid others. IRBs do indeed take responsibility for reviewing the science to assess the soundness of the design and the risks and benefits of the proposed research, notwithstanding, many institutions have a separate scientific review process that precedes and complements IRB review.
Dissatisfaction and concern almost what is perceived every bit an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has also mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB organisation as dysfunctional and "more concerned with protecting the institution than inquiry participants." 19 Some claim that IRBs are overburdened 20 and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about brunt: excessive paperwork, inflexible estimation of regulatory requirements, attending to inconsequential details, and "mission creep"—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to accept little to exercise with protection of research participants. 21 Fright of regulatory admonition has fueled a focus on compliance with regulations. 22 Some perceive the excessive or "hyper" regulation as seriously affecting or stifling research productivity and calculation price without adding meaningful protections for participants. 23,24 Clinical investigators complain that the IRB review procedure is inefficient and delays their research for what seem like small-scale modifications. 25 The public hears nearly problems and fears that enquiry might be unsafe and existing protections ineffective or inadequate. 26,27
Charles McCarthy, the first manager of the US Office for Protection from Research Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, "[IRBs] have become more insightful and sophisticated…Simply unless [the Homo Research Protection System] is considered to be an evolving and expanding mechanism, adapting to the issues of each menstruum of history, it is in danger of condign fossilized and ineffective." 28 Flexibility and adaptability are important characteristics not usually attributed to IRBs. The challenge is how to evolve, aggrandize, and adapt IRBs to the current exigencies of enquiry in a rational and meaningful way. As noted by Cohen and Lynch, 29 the system is "ripe for a major course correction."
Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges
Recognition of the demand for a robust organization of protecting human research subjects within the irresolute research landscape has led to various proposals for reform and suggestions for alternative models. 30‐35
Reform proposals offer changes to address some of the various factors that are problematic for IRBs and for those who use them. All the same, reform efforts have been somewhat paralyzed by the tension betwixt those who notice the electric current organization inadequate and those who find it as well overreaching. 36,37 Nonetheless, many grant that multiple reviews for a single study are duplicative, atomic number 82 to meaning delays in research without calculation meaningful protections, and can result in inconsistencies that bias the scientific discipline. 38,39 Boosted reasons for considering reform of the current oversight system include inherent conflicts of interest, inadequate resources, the emergence of new enquiry methodologies, and bereft expertise of members, among others. 40 IRBs also grapple with how to respond to evolving enquiry methods, and loftier profile cases in which regulators disagree with or disapprove of IRB decisions tin fuel dubiousness and anxiety. 41,42
Various systems of pre-IRB review accept gained traction as a way to improve IRB efficiency: Major bug and gaps tin can exist identified and corrected through prereview before an IRB sees the proposal. Institutions are too adopting a framework that more explicitly recognizes the essential roles of the establishment, investigators, and research teams in add-on to IRBs in protecting human subjects. 43 Several alternatives to the traditional model of single IRB review or review at each site of a multisite written report have been developed and tried (Tabular array 2). 44‐53 Proposed revisions to the Common Dominion include a recommendation for a single IRB of record for domestic multisite trials. 9 More than recently, the NIH chosen for comments on a draft proposal for a unmarried IRB review for NIH-funded multisite trials. 54 NIH is as well currently funding several empirical studies of central IRBs with the goal of informing policy development relevant to primal IRBs. 55 Despite these significant efforts, many challenges remain in irresolute the process of IRB review, including questions of liability, toll structures, and incentives, and uncertainty about the relative merits of proposed models. 56
Tabular array ii ]
Alternative Models for IRB Review
| Type | Explanation | Examples |
| Local IRB review | Unmarried-site written report or review at each site for single site or multisite studies | Most enquiry institutions have ≥ ane IRB at the site that review inquiry conducted at that site. |
| Shared IRB review | ||
| Reliance | An institution formally "relies" on the IRB of another institution for review of a particular study or set of studies. | Increasingly ≥ 1 site partner with another IRB through a reliance agreement. See, for example NIAID, CHOP, and others. |
| Shared review | Concurrent regional or key and local review | Indian Wellness Service |
| Centralized review | ||
| Central IRB | Central IRB established to review all studies of a type, each site accepts the cardinal review | National Cancer Institute's Central IRB (two adult, 1 pediatric, 1 cancer prevention and control) |
| American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network IRB | ||
| Veterans Administration fundamental IRB | ||
| A grouping of institutions form an alliance and create a new cardinal IRB to serve as IRB for group. | Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) | |
| OR | The IRB at Massachusetts General Infirmary is designated as IRB of record for all NINDS-funded NeuroNext institutions. | |
| An existing IRB is designated as the key IRB for all sites of a network. | ||
| One of the existing NIH intramural IRBs is designated as the fundamental PHERRB for public health emergencies. | ||
| Independent/commercial | A freestanding IRB (not part of an establishment) is employed to review single or multiple site studies. | Western IRB, Chesapeake IRB, many others |
| Federated model | Allows sites to choose amidst multiple options including reliance, shared review, local review, or facilitated review. All options include a commitment to sharing IRB submissions and determinations amid study sites. | National Children'due south Written report (NICHD) |
Need for Prove
Reform proposals often recognize the need for data about what works and for creative and testable ways of achieving the appropriate combination of protecting the rights and welfare of participants with meaningful and efficient IRB review that promotes high quality, relevant, and timely inquiry. Prove nigh how well IRBs are functioning, how effective they are, and how they could be more efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies describe IRB structure, process, or outcomes and show that IRB judgments are inconsistent, every bit is their application of a standard set of regulations. 58,59 Practices and decisions vary between and within IRBs ofttimes without justification, including determinations about risk level, inclusion criteria, and the appropriateness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55,60 Despite complaints well-nigh inconsistency, independence and local evaluation brand some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, it is difficult to observe a study or to identify metrics able to measure out how effective IRBs are at ensuring the ethical conduct of inquiry or protecting inquiry participants. 61 Improving effectiveness requires clear and measurable goals for IRBs and ethical justification for regulatory requirements. 62
Many of these factors converge for critics of the IRB system: growing requirements and costs, 63,64 bureaucratic burden, vague goals, and limited bear witness of effectiveness.
"The available show indicates that there are substantial direct and indirect costs associated with IRB oversight of research. IRBs also operate inconsistently and inefficiently, and focus their attention on paperwork and bureaucratic compliance. Despite their prevalence, there is no empirical evidence that IRB oversight has any benefit whatsoever—permit alone benefit that exceeds the toll." 65
Both normative analysis and empirical testify are needed to sympathise how to amend the electric current system and optimize protections for gimmicky inquiry. If the goal is primarily to protect inquiry participants from risk, for example, then more analysis of what risks count and more empirical show about inquiry risks would provide direction for how we are doing and where the gaps are. As Taylor 66 notes, "whether and how to protect is inescapably normative and inescapably empirical." In its 2011 written report Moral Science: Protecting Human Participants in Human Subjects Inquiry, the President's Commission recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of human subjects research "develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of human bailiwick protections and expand support for inquiry related to the ethical and social considerations of homo subject protections." 67
Centralizing IRB Review
Primarily driven by concerns most redundant review, burden, and filibuster, much attending has been given to the idea of single or central IRB review for multisite studies as an alternative to local IRB review at each site. Multiple reviews also have the possibility of jeopardizing the science past introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted past federal regulations 68 to use arrangements that centralize or share reviews, yet relatively few employ these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations take recommended single or central review for multisite studies. x,28‐31,35 Lingering resistance to adopting key or single review for multisite trials appears to exist based on concerns nearly the importance of local context, local accountability and liability, discomfort with relinquishing command over the review, uncertainty about the quality of review by other IRBs, and logistical concerns such as toll-sharing. xxx,54 There is a paucity of data evaluating how single or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resource use, or efficiency.
Conclusions
IRBs accept an of import function in protecting human being inquiry participants from possible harm and exploitation. Independent review by an IRB or equivalent is an important part of a system of protections aiming to ensure that ethical principles are followed and that adequate and advisable safeguards are in identify to protect subjects' rights and welfare while they contribute to ethically and scientifically rigorous research. Over the four decades since IRBs were codified into regulations, IRB review and oversight has developed and matured as part of a robust arrangement that provides "substantial protections for the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects." 69 Nevertheless, during that aforementioned period, research methods and opportunities have evolved, the domains of oversight accept expanded, and the research enterprise has grown and diversified. The rules, norms, procedures, and even articulation of the goals of IRB review accept not kept footstep. Although ethical principles underlying research with human subjects have not inverse, their implementation and appearing requires refinement and accommodation to respond to irresolute scientific and social contexts. Data, creativity, regulatory flexibility, and connected dialogue are needed to optimize the implementation of principles and to help shape the futurity structure, arrangement, processes, and outcomes of review and oversight by IRBs and related players. These efforts will support progress in clinical research, public trust in the enterprise, and protection of the participants that make enquiry possible.
Acknowledgments
Disharmonize of interest: None declared.
Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no office in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the information, or the grooming of the manuscript.
Other contributions: Views expressed are the author's and practice not necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services. The author is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, MD, PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.
ABBREVIATIONS
| DHHS | Department of Health and Human Services |
| FDA | U.s.a. Food and Drug Administration |
| IRB | institutional review lath |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| OHRP | Office of Homo Research Protections |
Footnotes
FUNDING/Support: Work on this article was supported by the Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Enquiry Program.
Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians. Come across online for more details.
References
1. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:541-550. [Google Scholar]
four. US Code of Federal Regulations. Championship 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed]
5. U.s. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for industry and FDA staff FDA acceptance of foreign clinical studies non conducted under an IND frequently asked questions.U.s.a. Food and Drug Administration website. http://world wide web.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2015.
six. US Section of Health and Human Services. Office of Man Research Protections (OHRP). International compilation of human subjects standards. Usa Department of Health and Human Services website. http://world wide web.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March 1, 2015.
8. Riis P. Letter from...Denmark. Planning of scientific-ethical committees. BMJ. 1977;two(6080):173-174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Upstanding Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Department of Wellness Education and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication Os 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board function. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Printing; 2008:552-559. [Google Scholar]
eleven. Role of Man Subjects Protection. Advanced observe of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Common Dominion. U.s. Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015.
12. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Office of Man Enquiry Protections. IRBs and assurances. US Department of Wellness and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/alphabetize.html. Accessed Feb 2, 2015.
14. Function of Budget: appropriations history by constitute/centre (1938 to present). National Institutes of Health, Function of Budget website. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html. Accessed March 3, 2015.
16. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Claret Plant Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Human being Research Protection Programme Functioning. Washington, DC: Association for the Accreditation of Human being Research Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar]
nineteen. Fost North, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects inquiry. JAMA. 2007;298(18):2196-2198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(2):152-157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Gunsalus CK, Bruner EM, Burbules NC, et al. Mission creep in the IRB globe. Scientific discipline. 2006;312(5779):1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Weil C, Rooney 50, McNeilly P, Cooper K, Borror K, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight messages: an update. IRB. 2010;32(ii):1-half dozen. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory brunt on research and quality improvement efforts. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):328-335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599-627. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Whitney SN, Alcser Yard, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Principal investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;v(2):68-72. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lemonick M, Goldstein A, Park A. Human republic of guinea pigs. Time. April 22, 2002. [Google Scholar]
27. Gilbert S. Trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(2):14-18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Printing; 2008:550. [Google Scholar]
29. Cohen IG, Lynch HF, eds. Introduction. Man Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:2. [Google Scholar]
thirty. Association of American Medical Colleges.Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Section of Health and Human Services; 2005. [Google Scholar]
31. Summary of the 2006 National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: optimizing human being subject area protection. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconf06rpt.pdf. November 2006. Accessed January v, 2015.
32. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Federman D, Hanna Grand, Rodriguez 50, eds. Responsible Research: A Systems Arroyo to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS. Research ideals. To protect human subjects, review what was done, non proposed. Science. 2012;335(6076):1576-1577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Wood A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ. Regional ethics organizations for protection of human enquiry participants. Nat Med. 2004;x(12):1283-1288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Kim S, Ubel P, DeVries R. Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature. 2009;457(29):534-535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Check DK, Weinfurt KP, Dombeck CB, Kramer JM, Flynn KE. Employ of key institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United states of america: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;ten(4):560-567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Ledford H. Human-subjects research: trial and error. Nature. 2007;448(7153):530-532. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Menikoff J. The paradoxical trouble with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1591-1593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):282-291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Wilfond BS, Magnus D, Antommaria AH, et al. The OHRP and SUPPORT. North Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):e36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Fanaroff JM. Ethical back up for surfactant, positive pressure, and oxygenation randomized trial (Back up). J Pediatr. 2013;163(v):1498-1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Speers One thousand. Evaluating the effectiveness of institutional review boards. In: Emanuel East, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:560-568. [Google Scholar]
44. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(xviii):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. National Cancer Institute Primal IRB Initiative. National Cancer Establish website. https://ncicirb.org/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
46. Graham DG, Spano MS, Manning B. The IRB challenge for practise-based enquiry: strategies of the American University of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Board Fam Med. 2007;twenty(2):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Role of Research and Evolution. VA fundamental institutional review lath (IRB). US Department of Veterans Diplomacy website. http://www.research.va.gov/programs/pride/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015.
48. BRANY institutional review board services. Biomedical Inquiry Alliance of New York (BRANY) website. http://world wide web.branyirb.com. Accessed February three, 2015.
49. Kaufmann P, O'Rourke PP. Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):321-323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Slutsman J, Hirschfeld S. A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: a report on the National Children'due south Study federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(half-dozen):1-vi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Request for comments on the typhoon NIH policy on the use of a unmarried institutional review lath for multi-site research. National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/observe-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html. Published Dec three, 2014. Accessed March ii, 2015.
56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using primal IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the U.s.a.. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(i):e54999. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How exercise we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in inquiry ethics review. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;ix:6. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Abbott 50, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what nosotros know and what nosotros all the same need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ideals. 2011;6(1):iii-19. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Arnold R, et al. How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Acad Med. 2012;87(7):969-974. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Shah Due south, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler Thou, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards use the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA. 2004;291(iv):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Further analysis and recommendations: recommendation v. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf. 2011. Accessed Feb 10, 2015.
63. Wagner T, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler J, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute Key Institutional Review Board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):662-666. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Sugarman J, Getz M, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ethics. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1825-1827. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Hyman D. Institutional review boards: is this the least worst nosotros can do? Northwestern Academy Law Review. 2007;101(2):749-774. [Google Scholar]
66. Taylor P. Introduction to office Two—protection of vulnerable populations. In: Cohen G, Lynch H, eds. Human Subjects Enquiry Regulation, Perspectives on the Time to come. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:63. [Google Scholar]
68. Us Code of Federal Regulations at 45CFR.46 and 21CFR56.
Articles from Chest are provided here courtesy of American College of Chest Physicians
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4631034/
0 Response to "Dpes Adding an Adoleescent to Research Require Irb Review"
Publicar un comentario