Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: A review of the literature

Clinical Trials

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 560-567

  Check, Devon K ^a   Weinfurt, Kevin P ^a   Dombeck, Carrie B ^a   Kramer, Judith M ^a   Flynn, Kathryn E ^a  

^a DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EMPIRICISM; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLIC OPINION; PUBLICATION; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84881043215     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774513484393     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Wagner TH, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler JM, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol. 2010 ; 28: 662-66
2. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Using a centralized IRB review process in multicenter clinical trials, March 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm127004.htm (accessed 17 August 2012).
3. MenikoffJ. OHRP correspondence, 30 April 2010. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/Correspondence/mcdeavitt20100430letter.html (accessed 6 August 2012).
4. Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Fed Regist. 2011 ; 76: 44512-31
5. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection. Presentation Materials October 10, 2012. Revised by SACHRP, 10 October 2012. SACHRP recommendations on consideration of local context with respect to increasing use of single IRB review. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/ sachrp/mtgings/2012%20Oct%20Mtg/revisedlocalconstext.pdf (accessed 11 January 2012).
6. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004 ; 141: 282-91
7. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States. PLoS One. 2013 ; 8 (1). e54999
8. Greene SM, Geiger AM. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve institutional review board approval. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 ; 59: 784-90
9. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 ; 6: 3-20
10. Helfand BT, Mongiu AK, Roehrborn CG, et al. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol. 2009 ; 181: 2674-79
11. Ravina B, Deuel L, Siderowf A, Dorsey ER. Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: Local costs without local context. Ann Neurol. 2010 ; 67: 258-60
12. Jester PM, Tilden SJ, Li Y, Whitley RJ, Sullender WM. Regulatory challenges: Lessons from recent West Nile virus trials in the United States. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006 ; 27: 254-59
13. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 2001 ; 29: 235-41
14. Stark AR, Tyson JE, Hibberd PL. Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol. 2010 ; 30: 163-69
15. Stair TO, Reed CR, Radeos MS, Koski G, Camargo CA. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2001 ; 8: 636-41
16. 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: 245-55
17. Sobolski GK, Flores L, Emanuel EJ. Institutional review board review of multicenter studies. Ann Intern Med. 2007 ; 146: 759
18. Who watches the watchmen?Nature2011; 476: 125. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/476125a.html
19. Loh ED, Meyer RE. Medical schools' attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of central institutional review boards. Acad Med. 2004 ; 79: 644-51
20. Klitzman R. How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US. BMC Med Ethics. 2011 ; 12: 13
21. Rosé CD. Local vs central institutional review boards for multicenter studies. JAMA. 2003 2126 ; 290 :
22. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002 ; 346: 1405-08
23. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants?. JAMA. 2010 ; 304 (10). 1122-23
24. Taylor HA. Moving beyond compliance: Measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB. 2007 ; 29 (5). 9-14
25. Coleman CH, Bouesseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics. 2008 ; 9: 6
26. US Department of Health and Human Services. Limited competition: Revision applications to advance evidence-based research related to protections for human subjects (U54). Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/ PAS-12-169.html (accessed 17 August 2012).
27. US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Central IRB. Available at: http://www.research.va.gov/vacentralirb/#.UPBoMJjc8ng (accessed 11 January 2012).
28. McNeil C. Central IRBs: Why are some institutions reluctant to sign on?. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 ; 97 (13). 953-55
29. Two roads diverged in a yellow wood: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Central IRB (CIRB) considers a model change. Presented at: Advancing Ethical Research Conference ; National Harbor, MD ;..
30. NeuroNEXT: Accelerating drug development in neurology. Lancet Neurol. 2012 ; 11: 119
31. The Academy of Medical Sciences. A new pathway for the regulation and governance of research, January 2011. Available at: http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/ p99.html (accessed 11 January 2013).