A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: A report on the national children's study federated IRB initiative

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1-6

  Slutsman, Julia ^a   Hirschfeld, Steven ^a  

^a EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); UNITED STATES;

EID: 84918791801     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: 23262222     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski C.P., et al. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Services Research 2006; 41(1):214-230
2. Greene SM, Geiger AM. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve institutional review board approval. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2006:59(8):784-790
3. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fond J, Hamosh A, et al. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003 5290(3):360-366.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, American Society of Clinical Oncology, et al. Report on the findings of the National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: Optimizing Human Subject Protection; November 19-21, 2006; Washington, DC; https://www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconfo6rpt.pdf
5. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine 2004; 141(4):282-291
6. Menikoff, J. The paradoxical problem with multiple IRB review. NEJM 2010; 363(17):1519-1593.
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Using a centralized IRB review process in multicenter trials. March 2006. http://www.fda.gov/down-loads/Regulatorylnformation/Guidances/UCM127013.pdf.
8. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration. "Human Subjects Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators." Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Federal Register 2011; 76(143):44512-44533. http://www.gpo. gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-26/html/2011-18792.htm.
9. 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. Academic Medicine 2012; 87(12):1710-1714.
10. McNeil C. Debate over institutional review boards continues as alternative options emerge. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2007; 99(7):502-503.
11. National Institutes of Health. 2009. https://www.ctsacentral.org/sites/default/files/documents//2NICHDNCRRIRBAgenda20090423Final.pdf and videocast at http://video-cast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp?c=116.
12. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. NEJM 2002; 346(18):1405-1408
13. Wagner TH, Murray C, Goldberg J, et al. Cost and benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007; 28(4):662-666; Vanderbilt University. IRB Share, https://www.irbshare.org/.
14. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Central Institutional Review Board (IRB). http://www.research.va.gov/vacentralirb/
15. Biomedical Research Alliance of New York. BRANY Institutional Review Board Services. http://www.branyirb.com/
16. Thornquist M, Edelstein C, Goodman G, et al. Streamlining IRB review in multisite trials through single-study IRB cooperative agreements: Experience of the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET). Controlled Clinical Trials 2002; 523 (1):80-86.
17. Wolf L, Walden J, Lo B. Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research. Annals of Family Medicine 2005; 53 Suppl 1:S30-37.
18. See ref. 2, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al. 2006; see ref. 7, NIH 2009.
19. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979.
20. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry E6 Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance. April 1996.
21. See ref. 8, Christian et al. 2002.
22. The toolkit is available from the National Children's Study upon request to ContactNCS@mail.nih.gov.