Enhancing communication among data monitoring committees and institutional review boards

Clinical Trials

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 277-282

  Taylor, Holly A ^a   Chaisson, Lelia ^a   Sugarman, Jeremy ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIVIL RIGHTS; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL TRIALS DATA MONITORING COMMITTEES; COMMUNICATION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 54549084479     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774508091262     Document Type: Review

References (14)

1. 45 CFR 46. Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Fed Regist 1991; 56(117): 28003-18.
2. Gordon V., Sugarman J., Kass N. Toward a more comprehensive approach to protecting human subjects: The interface of data safety and monitoring boards and institutional review boards in randomized clinical trials. IRB 1998; 20(1): 1-5.
3. Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL Data Committees in Clinical Trials: A Practical Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, West Sussex, England, 2002.
4. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for clinical trial sponsors: Establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees, non-binding recommendations (OMB Control No. 0910-0581). March 2006; Available at: http://www.fda.gov/CBER/gdlns/clintrialdmc.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2007.
5. DeMets DL, Califf RM, Dixon DO et al. Issues in regulatory guidelines for data monitoring committees. Clin Trials 2004; 1: 162-69.
6. National Institutes of Health. NIH policy for data and safety monitoring. June 1998; Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/ notice-files/not98-084.html. Accessed January 11, 2007.
7. National Institutes of Health. Guidance on reporting adverse events to institutional review boards for NIH-supported multicenter clinical trials. June 1999; available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/ noticefiles/not99-107.html. Accessed January 11, 2007.
8. Society for Clinical Trials Working Group on Data Monitoring, Dixon DO, Freedman RS, Herson J., et al. Guidelines for data and safety monitoring for clinical trials not requiring traditional data monitoring committees. Clin Trials 2006; 3: 314-19.
9. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Guideline for the Format and Content of the Clinical and Statistical Sections of New Drug Applications. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, 1988.
10. Dhhs/OIG. Institutional Review Boards: A system in jeopardy - overview and recommendations. 1998; OEI-01-97-00193.
11. National Institutes of Health. Further guidance on data and safety monitoring for phase I and phase II Trials. June 2000; available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-038.html. Accessed January 11, 2007.
12. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for clinical trials sponsors: Establishment and operation of clinical trial data monitoring committees, draft guidance (Nov. 2001). May 2002; available at: http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/clindatmon.htm. Accessed March 20, 2007.
13. StataCorp. Stat Statistical Software: Release 8.0. 2003.
14. Levine C., Faden R., Grady C., et al. On behalf of the Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics. A special scrutiny: A targeted form of research protocol review. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004; 140(3): 220-23.