Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: Local costs without local context

Annals of Neurology

Volumn 67, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 258-260

  Ravina, Bernard ^a   Deuel, Lisa ^a   Siderowf, Andrew ^b   Dorsey, E Ray ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALPHA TOCOPHEROL; UBIDECARENONE;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COST; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; LANGUAGE; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PARKINSON DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANTIOXIDANTS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PARKINSON DISEASE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; UBIQUINONE; UNITED STATES; VITAMIN E;

EID: 77949418691     PISSN: 03645134     EISSN: 15318249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ana.21831     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Menikoff J. Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments. Fed Regist 2009;74:9578-9583.
2. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 45, Vol 1. Part 46.114. Revised as of October 1, 2005. CITE: 45CFR46.114. Title 45. Public Welfare Subtitle A. Department of Health and Human Services. Part 46. Protection of Human Subjects. Subpart A. Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects. Sec. 46.114 Cooperative Research. Available at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/ retrieve.html. Accessed Aug 2009.
3. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). 2006 National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: Optimizing Human Subject Protection. Available at: http://www.aamc.org/research/irbreview/start.htm. Accessed Aug 2009.
4. Burman W, Breese P, Weis S, et al. The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Control Clin Trials 2003;24:245-255.
5. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 2003;348:721-726.
6. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:1405-1408.
7. Sugarman J, Getz K, Speckman JL, et al. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352:1825-1827.
8. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel's back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:152-157.
9. Jester PM, Tilden SJ, Li Y, et al. Regulatory challenges: lessons from recent West Nile virus trials in the United States. Contemp Clin Trials 2006;27:254-259.
10. McNay LA, Tavel JA, Oseekey K, et al. Regulatory approvals in a large multinational clinical trial: the ESPRIT experience. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:59-66.
11. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 2003; 22:151-185.
12. Samson K. Unabated increases in trial costs reflect evolving research milieu. Ann Neurol 2009;65:A9-A11.
13. Johnston SC, Hauser SL. Clinical trials: rising costs limit innovation. Ann Neurol 2007;62:A6-A7.
14. Goldberg J. Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) Initiative: NCRR-CTSA-NICHD Workshop on Comparing IRB Models for Multisite Pediatric Studies; 2009. http://www.ctsaweb.org/uploadedfiles/ CTSA%20Hirshfeld%20workshop%20IRB%20models%20GoldbergFinal1.pdf
15. Saginur R, Dent SF, Schwartz L, et al. Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board: lessons learned from developing a multicenter regional institutional review board. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: 1479-1482.
16. Dove A. Coast IRB hits treacherous waters. Nat Med 2009;15: 470.