How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?

Academic Medicine

Volumn 87, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 969-974

  Lidz, Charles W ^a   Appelbaum, Paul S ^b   Arnold, Robert ^c   Candilis, Philip ^a   Gardner, William ^d,e   Myers, Suzanne ^f   Simon, Lorna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863530033     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Pryor E, Habermann B, Broome M. Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: A national survey. J Med Ethics. 2006;33:365-369.
2. Barber B, Lally J, Makarushka J, Sullivan D. Research on Human Subjects: Problems of Social Control in Medical Experimentation. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1973.
3. Bell J, Whiton J, Connelly S. Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects. Arlington, Va: James Bell Associates; 1998.
4. Gray B. Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1975.
5. Bartlett E. International analysis of institutional review boards registered with the U.S. Office for Human Research Protections. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2008;3:49-56.
6. DeVries R, Forsberg C. What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Account Res. 2002;9:199-216.
7. Catania J, Lo B, Wolf L, et al. Survey of U.S. human research protection organizations: Workload and membership. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2008;3:57-70.
8. Sansone R, McDonald S, Hanley P, Sellbom M, Gaither G. The stipulations of one institutional review board: A five-year review. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:308-310. (Pubitemid 38868084)
9. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA. 2004;291:476-482. (Pubitemid 38129752)
10. 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. (Pubitemid 37430522)
11. 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. (Pubitemid 36570376)
12. Sieber J, Baluyot R. A survey of IRB concerns about social and behavioral research. IRB. 1992;14:9-10.
13. Sengupta S, Lo B. The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and nonscientist members of institutional review boards. Acad Med. 2003;78:212-218. (Pubitemid 36268295)
14. Lipsett MB, Fletcher JC, Secundy M. Research review at NIH. Hastings Cent Rep. 1979;9:18-21.
15. Liddle B, Brazelton E. Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliance with IRB procedures. IRB. 1996;18:4-6.
16. Hayes G, Hayes S, Dykstra T. A survey of university institutional review boards: Characteristics, policies, and procedures. IRB. 1995;17:212-218.
17. Cohen JM, Hedberg WB. The annual activity of a university IRB. IRB. 1980;2:5-6.
18. Gray B, Cooke R. The impact of IRBs on research. Hastings Cent Rep. 1980;10:36-41.
19. Jaeger J. An Ethnographic Analysis of Institutional Review Board Decision-Making [PhD dissertation]. Philadelphia, Pa: University of Pennsylvania; 2006.
20. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of human subjects. 45 CFR §46. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ 45cfr46.html. Revised January 15, 2009. Effective July 14, 2009. Accessed March 7, 2012.
21. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.