Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study

Critical Care Medicine

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1105-1109

  Polito, Carmen C ^a   Cribbs, Sushma K ^a   Martin, Greg S ^a   O'Keeffe, Terence ^b   Herr, Dan ^c   Rice, Todd W ^d   Sevransky, Jonathan E ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

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

^d VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

critical care; institutional review board; multicenter research; protocol

Indexed keywords

CRITICAL ILLNESS; HUMAN; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTENSIVE CARE; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

CRITICAL CARE; DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84899484938     PISSN: 00903493     EISSN: 15300293     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000133     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, et al: Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res 2006; 41:214-230
2. Mansbach J, Acholonu U, Clark S, et al: Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. Acad Emerg Med 2007; 14:377-380
3. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, et al: Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003; 290:360-366
4. Millum J, Menikoff J: Streamlining ethical review. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153:655-657
5. Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, et al: Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg 2005; 190:805-809
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Human Subjects Research (45 CFR 46). Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009
7. Peterson LA, Simpson K, Sorelle R, et al: How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156:728-735
8. Stair TO, Reed CR, Radeos MS, et al; MARC Investigators. Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration: Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8:636-641
9. Goldman J, Katz MD: Inconsistency and institutional review boards. JAMA 1982; 248:197-202
10. Menikoff J: The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1591-1593
11. Yaghoobi M: Theoretical shortcomings of Institutional Review Boards and possible solutions. Arch Iran Med 2011; 14:202-203
12. Esaki R, Macario A, Harrison TK, et al: The IRB process needs to be reexamined. Anesth Analg 2011; 112:1249-1250
13. Pocock SJ: Ethical dilemmas and malfunctions in clinical trials research. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156:746-747
14. Sevransky JE, Checkley W, Martin GS: Critical care trial design and interpretation: A primer. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1882-1889
15. Petersen LA, Simpson K, Sorelle R, et al: How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156:728-735
16. Thompson DA, Kass N, Holzmueller C, et al: Variation in local institutional review board evaluations of a multicenter patient safety study. J Healthc Qual 2012; 34:33-39
17. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J: Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29:235-241
18. Ali NA, Gutteridge D, Shahul S, et al: Critical illness outcome study: An observational study of protocols and mortality in intensive care units. Open Access J Clin Trials 2011; 3:55-65
19. Sevransky JE, Martin GS: Critical Illness Outcome Study (CIOS): A prospective, observational ecologic study in U.S. ICU's. 2011
20. Zerhouni E: Medicine. The NIH Roadmap. Science 2003; 302:63-72
21. Marsolo K: Approaches to facilitate institutional review board approval of multicenter research studies. Med Care 2012; 50(Suppl):S77-S81
22. National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: Optimizing Human Subject Protection, 2006. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/ irbconf06rpt.pdf. Accessed December 3, 2013
23. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al: Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med 2012; 87:1710-1714
24. Helfand BT, Mongiu AK, Roehrborn CG, et al; MIST Investigators: Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol 2009; 181:2674-2679