Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial

Journal of Perinatology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 163-169

  Stark, A R ^a   Tyson, J E ^b   Hibberd, P L ^c  

^a BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Institutional review board; Multicenter clinical trial; Study design

Indexed keywords

RETINOL;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG SAFETY; EXTREMELY LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEWBORN MORTALITY; NORMAL VALUE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SELECTION; PREMATURITY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SAMPLE SIZE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VITAMIN SUPPLEMENTATION;

DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFANT, EXTREMELY LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, PREMATURE; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; VITAMIN A;

EID: 77649186879     PISSN: 07438346     EISSN: 14765543     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/jp.2009.157     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. BMJ 1995; 31: 660-662.
2. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD. Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics 1996; 22: 78-82.
3. Silverman H, Chandros Hill S, Sugarman J. Variability between institutional review board's decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 235-241.
4. Stair TO, Reed CR, Raideos MS, Koski G, Camargo CA. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Academic Emerg Med 2001; 636-641.
5. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003; 290: 360-366.
6. Mansbach J, Acholonu U, Clark S, Camargo Jr CA. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14: 377-380.
7. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, Wyszewianski L. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res 2006; 41: 214-230.
8. Kimberly MB, Hoehn KS, Feudtner C, Nelson RM, Schreiner M. Variation in standards of research compensation and child assent practices: a comparison of 69 institutional review board-approved informed permission and assent forms for 3 multicenter pediatric clinical trials. Pediatrics 2006; 117: 1706-1711.
9. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, Weisman CS, Levine DW, Scholle SH. Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 279-290.
10. Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, Neumayer L, Hawn MT. Variation in institutional review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 805-809.
11. Clark S, Pelletier AJ, Brenner BE, Lang DM, Strunk RC, Camargo CA. Feasibility of a national fatal asthma registry: more evidence of IRB variation in evaluation of a standard protocol. J Asthma 2006; 43: 19-23.
12. Burman W, Breese P, Weis S, Bock N, Bernardo J, Vernon A et al. The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24: 245-255.
13. Tyson JE, Wright LL, Oh W, Kennedy KA, Mele L, Ehrenkranz RA et al. Vitamin A supplementation for extremely-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1962-1968.
14. Ambalavanan N, Tyson JE, Kennedy KA, Hansen NI, Vohr BR, Wright LL et al. Vitamin A supplementation for extremely low birth weight infants: outcome at 18-22 months. Pediatrics 2005; 115: e249-e254.
15. Kennedy KA, Stoll BJ, Ehrenkranz RA, Oh W, Wright LL, Stevenson DK et al. Vitamin A to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in very-low-birth-weight infants: Has the dose been too low? The NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Early Hum Dev 1997; 49: 19-31.
16. Drazen JM. Controlling research trials. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1377-1380.
17. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 141-145.
18. Fisher ES, Welch HG. Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care. How might more be worse? JAMA 1999; 281: 446-453.
19. Lacchetti C, Guyatt G. Therapy and validity. Surprising results of randomized controlled trials. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. AMA Press: Chicago, 2002, pp. 247-265.
20. Silverman WA. Overtreatment of newborns? A personal retrospective. Pediatrics 1992; 90: 971-976.
21. Tyson J. Use of unproven therapies in clinical practice and research: how can we better serve our patients and their families? Semin Perinatol 1995; 19: 98-111.
22. Office for Human Research Protections. US Department of Health and Human Services: IRB Guidebook http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb-guidebook.htm
23. Ehrenkranz RA, Mercurio MR. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. In: Sinclair JC, Bracken M (eds) Effective Care of the Newborn Infant. Oxford University Press: New York, 1992 p. 403.
24. Jadad AR, Rennie D. The randomized controlled trial gets a middle - aged checkup. JAMA 1998; 279: 319-320.
25. Guyatt G, Cook D, Devereaux PJ, Meade M, Straus S. Therapy. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. AMA Press: Chicago, 2002 pp. 55-79.
26. Oxman A, Guyatt G, Cook D, Montori V. Summarizing the evidence. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) Users' Guide to the Medical Literature. A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. AMA Press: Chicago, 2002 pp. 155-171.
27. Sinclair JC, Cook RJ, Guyatt GH, Pauker SG, Cook DJ. When should an effective treatment be used? Derivation of the threshold number needed to treat and the minimum event rate for treatment. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 253-262.
28. Bracken MB, Sinclair JC. When can odds ratios mislead? BMJ 1998; 317: 1156-1157.
29. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. The new system of review by multicenter research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1179-1182.
30. Thornquist MD, Edelstein C, Goodman GE, Omenn GS. Streamlining IRB review in multisite trials through single study IRB cooperative agreements. Experience of the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (Caret). Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 80-86.
31. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, Abrams JS, McCabe MS, Mauer JK et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1405-1408.
32. Emanuel EJ, Miller FG. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials - A middle ground. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 915-919.
33. Fanaroff AA, Korones SB, Wright LL, Wright EC, Poland RL, Bauer CB et al. A controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin to reduce nosocomial infections in very low birth weight infants. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1107-1113.
34. Van Lingen RA, Simons SH, Anderson BJ, Tibboel D. The effects of analgesia in the vulnerable infant during the perinatal period. Clin Perinatol 2002; 29: 511-534.
35. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 1594-15602.
36. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med 1984; 3: 409-420.
37. Fletcher RW, Fletcher SW. Clinical Epidemiology. The Essentials. 4th edn Lippincott Williams, and Wilkins: Philadelphia, 2005 pp 137-138.
38. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd edn Churchill Livingstone: New York, 2000 pp 69-70.
39. Bendich A, Langseth L. Safety of vitamin A. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 49: 358-371.
40. West Jr KP, Khatry SK, LeClerq SC, Adhikari R, See L, Katz J et al. Tolerance of young infants to a single, large dose of vitamin A: a randomized community trial in Nepal. Bull World Health Organ 1992; 70: 733-739.
41. Agoestina T, Humphrey JH, Taylor GA, Usman A, Subardja D, Hidayat S et al. Safety of one 52-mumol (50 000 IU) oral dose of vitamin A administered to neonates. Bull World Health Organ 1994; 72: 859-868.
42. Eidelman AI, Hoffman NW, Kaitz M. Cognitive deficits in women after childbirth. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81: 764-767.
43. Lantos J. The 'inclusion benefit' in clinical trials. J Pediatr 1999; 134: 130-131.
44. Broyles S, Sharp C, Tyson J, Sadler J. How should parents be informed about major procedures? An exploratory trial in the neonatal period. Early Hum Dev 1992; 31: 67-75.
45. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701-2711.
46. Vist GE, Bryant D, Somerville L, Birmingham T, Oxman AD. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (3): MR000009.
47. Schmidt B, Gillie P, Caco C, Roberts J, Roberts R. Do sick newborn infants benefit from participation in a randomized clinical trial? J Pediatr 1999; 134: 151-155.
48. Tyson JE, Knudson PL. Views of neonatologists and parents on consent for clinical trials. Lancet 2000; 356: 2026.
49. Burman WJ, Reeves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley R. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Int Med 2001; 134: 152-157.
50. DeMets DL, Fost N, Powers M. An institutional review board dilemma: responsible for safety monitoring but not in control. Clin Trials 2006; 3: 142-148.
51. Morse MA, Califf RM, Sugarman J. Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. JAMA 2001; 285: 1201-1205.
52. Gold JL, Dewa CS. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 291-307.
53. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. 2001. Bethesda, MD. (summary), pp 16-17. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nabc/pubs.html.
54. Goldman J, Katz MD. Inconsistency and institutional review boards. JAMA 1982; 248: 197-202.
55. Clark DC. Variability between institutional review boards and the value of local research context. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 444-445.
56. Schneider CE. The Practice of Autonomy. Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions. Oxford University Press: New York, 1998.