Timmers Marjolein, van Dijck Jeroen T J M, van Wijk Roel P J, Legrand Valerie, van Veen Ernest, Maas Andrew I R, Menon David K, Citerio Giuseppe, Stocchetti Nino, Kompanje Erwin J O
Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC - University Medical Centre Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Neurosurgery, University Neurosurgical Center Holland, LUMC, HMC & Haga Teaching Hospital, Leiden, The Hague, The Netherlands.
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 May 12;21(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00480-8.
The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency.
We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe.
From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074).
We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
欧盟旨在通过协调各成员国的程序来优化患者保护和医疗保健研究的效率。尽管如此,仍需要进一步改进以提高多中心研究效率。我们在一项关于创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的大型前瞻性欧洲多中心研究中调查了伦理审查委员会(IRB)程序,旨在为提高效率的举措提供信息并激发相关行动。
我们审查了参与创伤性脑损伤欧洲神经创伤协作有效性研究(CENTER-TBI)的欧洲神经创伤中心提交给IRB的相关文件以及IRB的批准文件。文件包括有关IRB程序的详细信息以及从提交IRB到获得批准的持续时间。对这些文件进行翻译和分析,以确定欧洲内部IRB程序的协调水平。
来自18个国家的66个中心提供了所需文件。初次IRB审查集中进行(N = 11,61%)或在当地进行(N = 7,39%),初次IRB批准在一轮(N = 8,44%)、两轮(N = 6,33%)或三轮(N = 4,23%)审查后获得,直至初次IRB批准的中位持续时间分别为50天和98天。55%的国家需要额外的IRB批准,这可能会将持续时间延长至535天。从提交到获得所需IRB批准的总持续时间为114天(四分位间距75 - 224天),与提交给中央IRB相比,提交给当地IRB后的总持续时间似乎更短(50天对138天,p = 0.0074)。
我们发现欧洲国家之间以及国家内部的IRB程序存在差异。在提交和批准要求、审查轮次数量以及总持续时间方面存在差异。研究合作可以受益于实施更统一的法律法规,同时承认各国之间的当地文化习惯和道德价值观。