Suppr超能文献

关于多中心研究单一机构审查委员会(IRB)审查的拟议共同规则授权的公众意见。

Public Comments on the Proposed Common Rule Mandate for Single-IRB Review of Multisite Research.

作者信息

Taylor Holly A, Ehrhardt Stephan, Ervin Ann-Margret

机构信息

Associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of the core faculty at Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.

Associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

出版信息

Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jan;41(1):15-21. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500002.

Abstract

We reviewed the public comments submitted in response to the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS's) original and revised proposal for mandated single-IRB review of federally funded multisite research to see who responded to the proposed mandate and to determine what they said and how the agency addressed the public comments in its revised proposal. Our analysis indicates that support for the single-IRB mandate was limited. The most common argument against the proposed mandate came from those concerned with the loss of site-specific institutional review board (IRB) review of the protocol for a multisite study to address issues relevant to local context. Concerns were also raised that the single-IRB approach would replace one inefficient system (that entails, for example, multiple reviews of a single study) with another potentially inefficient system (involving the negotiation and management of multiple interinstitutional agreements). Empirical research about the implementation of DHHS's final rule-and the separate rule of the National Institutes of Health-mandating single-IRB review is needed to determine whether the single-IRB model achieves the stated goals.

摘要

我们审查了针对美国卫生与公众服务部(DHHS)关于联邦资助的多中心研究强制实行单一机构审查委员会(IRB)审查的原始提案和修订提案所提交的公众意见,以了解哪些人对拟议的强制规定做出了回应,并确定他们的意见内容,以及该机构在修订提案中是如何处理公众意见的。我们的分析表明,对单一IRB强制规定的支持有限。反对拟议强制规定的最常见论点来自那些担心多中心研究方案失去特定场所的机构审查委员会(IRB)审查以解决与当地情况相关问题的人。还有人担心单一IRB方法会用另一个潜在低效的系统(涉及多个机构间协议的谈判和管理)取代一个低效的系统(例如,对单个研究进行多次审查)。需要对DHHS最终规则以及国立卫生研究院关于强制实行单一IRB审查的单独规则的实施情况进行实证研究,以确定单一IRB模式是否实现了既定目标。

相似文献

1
2
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.
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
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.
7
Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jan;41(1):22-31. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500003.
8
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
9
The investigator and the IRB: a survey of depression and schizophrenia researchers.
Schizophr Res. 2010 Sep;122(1-3):206-12. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2009.12.019. Epub 2010 Jan 12.

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
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.
3
Pediatric specific challenges of the single institutional review board mandate.
Trials. 2022 Mar 21;23(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06141-y.

本文引用的文献

1
Use of a Single, Independent IRB: Case Study of an NIH Funded Consortium.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Dec;8:114-121. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.001. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
4
Federal Research Regulations for the 21st Century.
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 31;374(13):1205-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1600511.
5
Reform of Clinical Research Regulations, Finally.
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 10;373(24):2296-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512463. Epub 2015 Nov 4.
6
Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century.
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 10;373(24):2293-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1512205. Epub 2015 Oct 28.
7
Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network.
Acad Med. 2015 Mar;90(3):321-3. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000562.
10
Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature.
Clin Trials. 2013 Aug;10(4):560-7. doi: 10.1177/1740774513484393. Epub 2013 May 10.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验