Time required for institutional review board review at one veterans affairs medical center

JAMA Surgery

Volumn 150, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 103-109

  Hall, Daniel E ^a,b   Hanusa, Barbara H ^a   Stone, Roslyn A ^a,c   Ling, Bruce S ^a,d   Arnold, Robert M ^d  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; COMPUTER SECURITY; CONSENSUS; HEALTH CENTER; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIME; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; URBAN AREA; VETERAN; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RESEARCH DESIGN; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;

EID: 84923281832     PISSN: 21686254     EISSN: 21686262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.956     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Driscoll A, Currey J, Worrall-Carter L, Stewart S. Ethical dilemmas of a large national multi-centre study in Australia: time for some consistency. J Clin Nurs. 2008;17(16):2212-2220.
2. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Mechaber AJ, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med. 2007;82(7):654-660.
3. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, Weisman CS, Levine DW, Scholle SH. Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(1):279-290.
4. Goodyear-Smith F, Lobb B, Davies G, Nachson I, Seelau SM. International variation in ethics committee requirements: comparisons across five Westernised nations. BMC Med Ethics. 2002;3:2.
5. Larson E, Bratts T, Zwanziger J, Stone P. A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36(3):260-264.
6. Pogorzelska M, Stone PW, Cohn EG, Larson E. Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years. Nurs Outlook. 2010;58(4):181-187.
7. Porcu L, Poli D, Torri V, et al. Impact of recent legislative bills regarding clinical research on Italian ethics committee activity. J Med Ethics. 2008;34 (10):747-750.
8. Byrne MM, Speckman J, Getz K, Sugarman J. Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight. Acad Med. 2006;81(8):708-712.
9. Wagner TH, Bhandari A, Chadwick GL, Nelson DK. The cost of operating institutional review boards (IRBs). Acad Med. 2003;78(6):638-644.
10. 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(4):662-666.
11. Belknap SM, Georgopoulos CH, West DP, Yarnold PR, Kelly WN. Quality of methods for assessing and reporting serious adverse events in clinical trials of cancer drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(2):231-236.
12. Dorr DA, Burdon R, West DP, et al. Quality of reporting of serious adverse drug events to an institutional review board: a case study with the novel cancer agent, imatinib mesylate. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(11):3850-3855.
13. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599-627.
14. Govindarajan R, Young JW, Harless CL, Hutchins LF. Barriers to clinical trials vary according to the type of trial and the institution. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(12):1633-1634.