The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium

Controlled Clinical Trials

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 245-255

  Burman, William ^a,b   Breese, Peter ^a   Weis, Stephen ^c   Bock, Naomi ^d   Bernardo, John ^e   Vernon, Andrew ^d  

^a DENVER PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER   (United States)

^d CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^e BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Consent form; Human subjects protection; Institutional review board; Multicenter clinical trials; Reading level

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DOCUMENTATION; ERROR; EVALUATION; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MULTICENTER STUDY;

EID: 0038369243     PISSN: 01972456     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00003-5     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional review boards: the emergence of independent boards. 1998;Office of Inspector General, Washington, D.C.
2. Moreno J., Caplan A.L., Wolpe P.R. Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. Project on Informed Consent, Human Research Ethics Group. JAMA. 280:1998;1951-1958.
3. Alberti K.G.M.M. Local research ethics committees: time to grab several bulls by the horns. BMJ. 311:1995;310-311.
4. Phillips D.F. Institutional review boards under stress: will they explode or change? JAMA. 276:1996;1623-1626.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional review boards: a time for reform. 1998;Office of the Inspector General, Washington, D.C.
6. Burman W.J., Reves R.R., Cohn D.L., Schooley R.T. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med. 134:2001;152-157.
7. Middle C., Johnson A., Petty T., Sims L., Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ. 311:1995;659-660.
8. Dal-Re R., Espada J., Ortega R. Performance of research ethics committees in Spain. A prospective study of 100 applications for clinical trial protocols on medicines. J Med Ethics. 25:1999;268-273.
9. Jamrozik K., Kolybaba M. Are ethics committees retarding the improvement of health services in Australia? Med J Aust. 170:1999;26-28.
10. Bock N.N., Sterling T.R., Hamilton C.D., et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the tolerability of rifapentine 600, 900, and 1,200 mg plus isoniazid in the continuation phase of tuberculosis treatment. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 165:2002;1526-1530.
11. Flesch R.F. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 32:1948;221-224.
12. United States Federal Code. Protection of human subjects. Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 46.
13. The Tuberculosis Trials Consortium. Rifapentine and isoniazid once a week versus rifampin and isoniazid once a week for treatment of drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-negative patients: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 360:2002;528-534.
14. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. BMJ. 311:1995;660-661.
15. While A.E. Research ethics committees at work: the experience of one multi-location study. J Med Ethics. 22:1996;352-355.
16. Stair T.O., Reed C.R., Radeos M.S., Koski G., Camargo C.A. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med. 8:2001;636-641.
17. Lynn J., Johnson J., Levine R.J. The ethical conduct of health services research: a case study of 55 institutions' applications to the SUPPORT project. Clin Res. 42:1994;3-10.
18. Silverman H., Hull S.C., Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 29:2001;235-241.
19. Morrow G.R. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA. 244:1980;56-58.
20. Goldstein A.O., Frasier P., Curtis P., Reid A., Kreher N.E. Consent form readability in university-sponsored research. J Fam Pract. 42:1996;606-611.
21. Hopper K., TenHave T., Hartzel J. Informed consent forms for clinical and research imaging procedures: how much do patients understand? Am J Roentgenol. 164:1995;493-496.
22. Grossman S.A., Piantadosi S., Covahey C. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol. 12:1994;2211-2215.
23. Loverde M.E., Prochazca A.V., Byyny R.L. Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Intern Med. 4:1989;410-412.
24. Hammerschmidt D., Keane M. Institutional review board (IRB) review lacks impact on the readability of consent forms for research. Am J Med Sci. 304:1992;348-351.
25. Tarnowski K.J., Allen D.M., Mayhall C., Kelly P.A. Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics. 85:1990;58-62.
26. Report and recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Volume 1. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. 2001;National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Bethesda, Maryland.
27. Institute of Medicine. Responsible research: a systems approach to protecting research participants. 2002;National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
28. Christian M.C., Goldberg J.L., Killen J., et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 346:2002;1405-1408.
29. Peduzzi P., Guarino P., Donta S.T., et al. Research on informed consent: investigator-developed versus focus group-developed consent documents, a VA cooperative study. Control Clin Trials. 23:2002;184-197.