Suppr超能文献

机构审查委员会使用外部专家:我们了解多少?

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?

机构信息

Associate director of IRB operations in the Office of Regulatory Affairs and Research Compliance at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health and an EdD candidate at Vanderbilt University.

Postdoctoral fellow and scholar at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University.

出版信息

Ethics Hum Res. 2022 Mar;44(2):26-32. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500121.

Abstract

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality. The capacity IRBs have to fulfill their mission of protecting research participants without unduly hindering research is influenced by IRBs' access to and use of the right type of expertise to review challenging research ethics, regulatory, and scientific issues. Through a review of the regulations and standards permitting IRBs to draw on the competencies of outside experts and through examination of the needs, strategies, challenges, and concerns related to doing so, we identify critical gaps in the existing literature and set forth an agenda for future empirical research.

摘要

机构审查委员会(IRB)被法规允许在审查超出其成员专业知识范围内的研究申请时,寻求外部专家的协助。然而,对于 IRB 何时、为何以及如何咨询外部专家,人们的理解还不够充分,因为迄今为止,这一做法并不是任何已发表文献或实证研究的主要关注点。这些问题对 IRB 的质量有着重要的影响。IRB 保护研究参与者的能力,同时又不会过度阻碍研究,这取决于 IRB 获得和使用正确类型的专业知识的能力,以审查具有挑战性的研究伦理、监管和科学问题。通过审查允许 IRB 利用外部专家能力的法规和标准,并通过审查与之相关的需求、策略、挑战和关注点,我们发现现有文献中存在重大空白,并为未来的实证研究制定了议程。

相似文献

1
Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?
Ethics Hum Res. 2022 Mar;44(2):26-32. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500121.
2
Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2022 Oct-Dec;13(4):251-262. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2090459. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
3
IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.
Am J Bioeth. 2023 Jun;23(6):75-88. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2063434. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
5
A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 Mar;6(1):3-19. doi: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3.
6
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.
7
US IRBs confronting research in the developing world.
Dev World Bioeth. 2012 Aug;12(2):63-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00324.x. Epub 2012 Apr 20.
8
Of Parachutes and Participant Protection: Moving Beyond Quality to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Jul;14(3):190-196. doi: 10.1177/1556264618812625. Epub 2018 Dec 12.
9
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.

引用本文的文献

2
Institutional review boards need new skills to review data sharing and management plans.
Nat Med. 2023 Jun;29(6):1307-1309. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02292-w.
3
Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2022 Oct-Dec;13(4):251-262. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2090459. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
4
How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2023 Jan-Mar;14(1):23-37. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2090641. Epub 2022 Jun 22.

本文引用的文献

1
A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 30;10(7):e0133639. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133639. eCollection 2015.
2
How IRBs view and make decisions about social risks.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Jul;8(3):58-65. doi: 10.1525/jer.2013.8.3.58.
3
IRB decision-making with imperfect knowledge: a framework for evidence-based research ethics review.
J Law Med Ethics. 2012 Winter;40(4):951-69. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2012.00724.x.
6
What scientists want from their research ethics committee.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Mar;1(1):67-82. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.67.
7
The expanding purview: institutional review boards and the review of human subjects research.
Account Res. 2008 Jul-Sep;15(3):188-204. doi: 10.1080/08989620802201866.
8
Strategies for achieving high-quality IRB review.
Am J Bioeth. 2004 Summer;4(3):74-6; discussion W32. doi: 10.1080/15265160490497407.

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