Those responsible for approving research studies have poor knowledge of research study design: A knowledge assessment of Institutional Review Board members

Acta Informatica Medica

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 196-201

  Mhaskar, Rahul ^a   Pathak, Elizabeth Barnett ^a   Wieten, Sarah ^a   Guterbock, Thomas M ^b   Kumar, Ambuj ^a   Djulbegovic, Benjamin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Approval; Clinical trials; Institutional review board; Knowledge; Observational studies; Randomized controlled trials; Study design

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SCIENTIST; SELF REPORT; STUDY DESIGN; WORK EXPERIENCE;

EID: 84944039835     PISSN: 03538109     EISSN: 19865988     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5455/aim.2015.23.196-201     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Sherwood ML, Buchinsky FJ, Quigley MR, et al. Unique challenges of obtaining regulatory approval for a multicenter protocol to study the genetics of RRP and suggested remedies. Otolaryngol Head Neck. 2006; 135(2):189-196.
2. Stark AR, Tyson JE, Hibberd PL. Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol. 2010; 30(3):163-169.
3. Stair TO, Reed CR, Redeos MS, Koski G, Camargo CA, Investigators M. Variation in institutional review board responses to standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2001; 8(6):636-641.
4. Henderson GE, Churchill LR, Davis AM, et al. Clinical Trials and medical care: defining the therapeutic misconception. PLoS medicine. 2007; 4(11):324.
5. Beskow L, Namey E, Miller P, Cooper A. IRB Chairs' Perspecitives on Genotype-Driven Research Recruitment. IRB: Ethics and Human Research. 2012; 34(3):1-10.
6. Klitzman R. The Ethics Police?: IRBs' Views Concerning Their Power. Plos ONE. 2011; 6(12):1-7.
7. Sirotin N, Wolf L, Pollack L, Catania J, Dolcini M, Lo B. IRBs and Ethically Challenging Protocols: The Views of IRB Chairs about Useful Resources. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2010; 32(5):10-19.
8. Candilis P, Lidz C, Simon L, et al. The silent majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings?. IRB: Ethics & Human Research. 2012; 34(4):15-20.
9. Abbott L, Grady C. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn. Journal of Empirical Research ofn Human Research Ethics: An International Journal. 2011; 1: 3.
10. Allen M, MacLeod T, Handfield-Jones R, Sinclair D, Fleming M. Presentation of Evidence in Continuing Medical Education Programs: A Mixed Methods Study. Journ Con Ed Health Prof Fall. 2010; 30(4):221-228.
11. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 2001; 29(2):235-241.
12. Mansbach J, Acholonu U, Clark S, Camargo CA, Jr. Variation in institutional review board responses to standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. Acad Emerg Med. 2007; 14(4):377-380.
13. 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(3):360-366.
14. Greene SM, Geiger AM, Harris EL, et al. Impact of IRB requirements in a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes. Ann Epidemiol. 2006; 16(4):275-278.
15. Helfand BT, Mongiu AK, Roehrborn CG, et al. Variation in Institutional Review Board response to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trail. J Urology. 2009; 181(6):2674-2679.
16. Lynn MR and Nelson DK. Common (Mis) perceptions about IRB review of Human Subjects Research. Nurs Sci Q. 2005; 18: 264.
17. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. Deerfield, IL: AAPOR, Revised 2011. (Accessed April 1st, 2014 at http://aapor.org/Content/NavigationMenu/AboutAAPOR/StandardsampEthics/StandardDefinitions/StandardDefinitions2011.pdf).
18. Klitzman R. Institutional Review Board Community Members: Who Are They, What Do They Do and Whom Do They Represent? Academic Medicine. 2012; (7):975-981.
19. Lidz C, Simon L, Appelbaum P, et al. The Participation of Community Members on Medical Institutional Review Boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2012; 7(1):1-8.
20. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. "Common Rule" 1991. (Accessed April 1st 2014 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/commonrule).
21. Chalmers I, Bracken M, Oliver S, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014; 383(9912):156-165.
22. Bledsoe CH, Sherin B, Galinsky A, et al. Regulating creativity: Research and survival in the IRB iron cage. Northwestern University Law Review. 2007; 101(2):593-641.
23. 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 Services Research. 2005; 40(1):279-290.
24. Keith-Spiegel, P, Koocher GP, Tabachnick B. What scientists want from their research ethics committee? Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2006; 1(1):67-81.
25. Koerner AF. Communication scholars' communication and relationship with their IRBs. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 2005; 33(3):231-241.
26. Taylor J, Patterson M. Autonomy and Compliance: How Qualitative Sociologists Respond to Institutional Ethical Oversight. Qualitative Sociology. 2010; 33(2):161-183.
27. Johnson T, Wislar J. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA. The Journal of The Americal Medical Association. 2012; 307(17):1805-1806.