Single IRBs in Multisite Trials: Questions Posed by the New NIH Policy.
作者信息
Klitzman Robert, Pivovarova Ekaterina, Lidz Charles W
机构信息
Columbia University, New York, New York.
University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worchester.
出版信息
JAMA. 2017 May 23;317(20):2061-2062. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4624.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Single IRBs in Multisite Trials: Questions Posed by the New NIH Policy.
JAMA. 2017 May 23;317(20):2061-2062. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4624.
2
NIH Policy on Single-IRB Review - A New Era in Multicenter Studies.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 15;375(24):2315-2317. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1608766.
3
Central IRBs: why are some institutions reluctant to sign on?
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jul 6;97(13):953-5. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji196.
4
Growing pains: central review board project still developing.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 May 7;95(9):636-7. doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.9.636.
5
Final NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multisite Research.
Clin Transl Sci. 2017 May;10(3):130-132. doi: 10.1111/cts.12447. Epub 2017 Mar 2.
6
The ethics approval process for multisite research studies in Australia: changes sought by the Australian Genomics initiative.
Med J Aust. 2019 Nov;211(10):440-444.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50397.
7
Reducing the Single IRB Burden: Streamlining Electronic IRB Systems.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):33-40. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1818877. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
8
IRBs and monitoring the safety of clinical trials.
Hum Res Rep. 2003 Jan;18(1):3.
9
When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.
Ethics Hum Res. 2020 Jan;42(1):36-40. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500041.
10
"You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Jul;14(3):286-295. doi: 10.1177/1556264619850440. Epub 2019 May 22.
引用本文的文献
1
Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Dec 18;9(1):e2. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.685. eCollection 2025.
2
Using single IRB consultations to meet the educational needs of investigative teams.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2022 Aug 11;29:100971. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100971. eCollection 2022 Oct.
3
Key lessons and strategies for implementing single IRB review in the Trial Innovation Network.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Apr 19;6(1):e53. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.391. eCollection 2022.
4
The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Mar 23;6(1):e39. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.376. eCollection 2022.
5
Pediatric specific challenges of the single institutional review board mandate.
Trials. 2022 Mar 21;23(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06141-y.
6
The status of central ethical reviewing and challenges regarding its introduction to non-interventional studies in Japan.
Nagoya J Med Sci. 2021 May;83(2):299-309. doi: 10.18999/nagjms.83.2.299.
7
A Study of Reliance Agreement Templates Used by U.S. Research Institutions.
IRB. 2018 May-Jun;40(3):6-10. doi: 10.1002/eahr.403002. Epub 2018 May 1.
8
"You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Jul;14(3):286-295. doi: 10.1177/1556264619850440. Epub 2019 May 22.
9
How U.S. research institutions are responding to the single Institutional Review Board mandate.
Account Res. 2018;25(6):340-349. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1506337. Epub 2018 Aug 9.
10
Why Public Comments Matter: The Case of the National Institutes of Health Policy on Single Institutional Review Board Review of Multicenter Studies.
Acad Med. 2018 Aug;93(8):1157-1161. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002206.
本文引用的文献
1
Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Final rule.
Fed Regist. 2017 Jan 19;82(12):7149-274.
2
How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?
Acad Med. 2012 Jul;87(7):969-74. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e.
3
The ins and outs of independent IRBs.
J Health Life Sci Law. 2008 Oct;2(1):73, 75-122.
4
Should society allow research ethics boards to be run as for-profit enterprises?
PLoS Med. 2006 Jul;3(7):e309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030309. Epub 2006 Jul 25.
Zotero 插件