• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

单机构审查委员会数据交换标准在多中心临床研究中的经济分析。

Economic analysis of a single institutional review board data exchange standard in multisite clinical studies.

机构信息

Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

出版信息

Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Nov;122:106953. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106953. Epub 2022 Oct 4.

DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2022.106953
PMID:36202199
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10015373/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Single Institutional Review Boards (sIRB) are not achieving the benefits envisioned by the National Institutes of Health. The recently published Health Level Seven (HL7®) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) data exchange standard seeks to improve sIRB operational efficiency.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a study to determine whether the use of this standard would be economically attractive for sIRB workflows collectively and for Reviewing and Relying institutions. We examined four sIRB-associated workflows at a single institution: (1) Initial Study Protocol Application, (2) Site Addition for an Approved sIRB study, (3) Continuing Review, and (4) Medical and Non-Medical Event Reporting. Task-level information identified personnel roles and their associated hour requirements for completion. Tasks that would be eliminated by the data exchange standard were identified. Personnel costs were estimated using annual salaries by role. No tasks would be eliminated in the Initial Study Protocol Application or Medical and Non-Medical Event Reporting workflows through use of the proposed data exchange standard. Site Addition workflow hours would be reduced by 2.50 h per site (from 15.50 to 13.00 h) and Continuing Review hours would be reduced by 9.00 h per site per study year (from 36.50 to 27.50 h). Associated costs savings were $251 for the Site Addition workflow (from $1609 to $1358) and $1033 for the Continuing Review workflow (from $4110 to $3076).

CONCLUSION

Use of the proposed HL7 FHIR® data exchange standard would be economically attractive for sIRB workflows collectively and for each entity participating in the new workflows.

摘要

背景

单一机构审查委员会(sIRB)并未实现美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)预期的收益。最近发布的健康水平 7 层(HL7®)快速医疗互操作性资源(FHIR®)数据交换标准旨在提高 sIRB 的运营效率。

方法与结果

我们进行了一项研究,以确定该标准的使用是否对 sIRB 工作流程整体以及对审查和依赖机构具有经济吸引力。我们在一家机构中检查了四个与 sIRB 相关的工作流程:(1)初始研究方案申请,(2)批准的 sIRB 研究的站点添加,(3)持续审查,和(4)医疗和非医疗事件报告。任务级别的信息确定了人员角色及其完成任务所需的相关小时数。确定了可以通过数据交换标准消除的任务。使用按角色划分的年薪估算人员成本。在使用拟议的数据交换标准时,初始研究方案申请或医疗和非医疗事件报告工作流程中不会消除任何任务。站点添加工作流程的小时数将减少 2.50 小时/站点(从 15.50 小时减少到 13.00 小时),持续审查的小时数将减少 9.00 小时/站点/研究年(从 36.50 小时减少到 27.50 小时)。相关的成本节省为站点添加工作流程节省了 251 美元(从 1609 美元降至 1358 美元),持续审查工作流程节省了 1033 美元(从 4110 美元降至 3076 美元)。

结论

拟议的 HL7 FHIR®数据交换标准的使用对 sIRB 工作流程整体以及参与新工作流程的每个实体都具有经济吸引力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eccb/10015373/a29b19f03b13/nihms-1879157-f0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eccb/10015373/a29b19f03b13/nihms-1879157-f0001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/eccb/10015373/a29b19f03b13/nihms-1879157-f0001.jpg

相似文献

1
Economic analysis of a single institutional review board data exchange standard in multisite clinical studies.单机构审查委员会数据交换标准在多中心临床研究中的经济分析。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Nov;122:106953. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106953. Epub 2022 Oct 4.
2
Evaluating Site-Level Implementations of the HL7 FHIR Standard to Support eSource Data Exchange in Clinical Research.评估HL7 FHIR标准的站点级实施情况以支持临床研究中的电子源数据交换。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2021 May 27;281:397-401. doi: 10.3233/SHTI210188.
3
Evaluating the Coverage of the HL7 FHIR Standard to Support eSource Data Exchange Implementations for use in Multi-Site Clinical Research Studies.评估 HL7 FHIR 标准的覆盖范围,以支持用于多站点临床研究的电子源数据交换实施。
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2021 Jan 25;2020:472-481. eCollection 2020.
4
Reducing the Single IRB Burden: Streamlining Electronic IRB Systems.减少单一 IRB 负担:简化电子 IRB 系统。
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):33-40. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1818877. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
5
Factors Associated with IRB Review Time in a Non-Federally Funded Study Using an sIRB of Record.使用记录 sIRB 的非联邦资助研究中与 IRB 审查时间相关的因素。
Ethics Hum Res. 2023 Jul-Aug;45(4):16-29. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500173.
6
Stakeholder Reflections on Implementing the National Institutes of Health's Policy on Single Institutional Review Boards.利益相关者对美国国立卫生研究院单一机构审查委员会政策实施情况的反思。
Ethics Hum Res. 2023 Sep-Oct;45(5):15-26. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500179.
7
Aggregating the syntactic and semantic similarity of healthcare data towards their transformation to HL7 FHIR through ontology matching.通过本体匹配,聚合医疗保健数据的语法和语义相似性,以将其转换为 HL7 FHIR。
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Dec;132:104002. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104002. Epub 2019 Oct 5.
8
Transitioning to the National Institutes of Health single institutional review board model: Piloting the use of the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance.过渡到美国国立卫生研究院单一机构审查委员会模式:试用简化、多地点、加速试验 IRB 资源依赖的方法。
Clin Trials. 2019 Jun;16(3):290-296. doi: 10.1177/1740774519832911. Epub 2019 Mar 13.
9
The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review.机构审查委员会信赖交流平台(IREx):一个用于实施单一机构审查委员会审查的全国性网络平台。
J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Mar 23;6(1):e39. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.376. eCollection 2022.
10
Implementation of a Secured Cross-Institutional Data Collection Infrastructure by Applying HL7 FHIR on an Existing Distributed EMR Storages.通过在现有的分布式电子病历存储上应用HL7 FHIR来实现安全的跨机构数据收集基础设施。
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020 Jun 26;272:155-158. doi: 10.3233/SHTI200517.

本文引用的文献

1
Assessment of North American Clinical Research Site Performance During the Start-up of Large Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.评估大型心血管临床试验启动期间北美临床研究机构的表现。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jul 1;4(7):e2117963. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.17963.
2
The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network-initiated clinical trials.国立儿童健康与人类发展合作生育医学网发起的临床试验中单机构审查委员会审查的效率。
Clin Trials. 2019 Feb;16(1):3-10. doi: 10.1177/1740774518807888. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
3
Cycle Time Metrics for Multisite Clinical Trials in the United States.
美国多中心临床试验的周期时间指标
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2013 Mar;47(2):152-160. doi: 10.1177/2168479012464371.
4
Type 1 Diabetes TrialNet: A Multifaceted Approach to Bringing Disease-Modifying Therapy to Clinical Use in Type 1 Diabetes.1 型糖尿病临床试验网络:将疾病修正疗法应用于 1 型糖尿病的多方位方法。
Diabetes Care. 2018 Apr;41(4):653-661. doi: 10.2337/dc17-0806.
5
Meeting the Challenge: The National Cancer Institute's Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research.迎接挑战:美国国立癌症研究所多地点研究中央机构审查委员会
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 10;36(8):819-824. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.9836. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
6
A single center analysis of factors influencing study start-up timeline in clinical trials.一项关于影响临床试验研究启动时间线因素的单中心分析。
Future Sci OA. 2017 Jul 14;3(4):FSO223. doi: 10.4155/fsoa-2017-0025. eCollection 2017 Nov.
7
Time to institutional review board approval with local versus central review in a multicenter pragmatic trial.在一项多中心实用试验中,采用本地审查与中央审查获得机构审查委员会批准的时间。
Clin Trials. 2018 Feb;15(1):107-111. doi: 10.1177/1740774517735536. Epub 2017 Oct 6.
8
Single-Minded Research Review: The Common Rule and Single IRB Policy.专项研究综述:《通用规则》与单一机构审查委员会政策
Am J Bioeth. 2017 Jul;17(7):34-36. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1328542.
9
IRB reliance: An informatics approach.机构审查委员会的依赖:一种信息学方法。
J Biomed Inform. 2016 Apr;60:58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.01.011. Epub 2016 Jan 28.
10
Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges.机构审查委员会:目的与挑战。
Chest. 2015 Nov;148(5):1148-1155. doi: 10.1378/chest.15-0706.