ArticlePloS one2011
The ethics police?: IRBs' views concerning their power.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rethinking ethical reflexivity and oversight in health research through an ecosystem approach: A workshop report.Research ethics · 2026Article
- A blank check or a global public good? A qualitative study of how ethics review committee members in Colombia weigh the risks and benefits of broad consent for data and sample sharing during a pandemic.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Precision Health: The Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in Advancing the Vision.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020Article
- A Qualitative Study on Experiences and Perspectives of Members of a Dutch Medical Research Ethics Committee.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2020Article
- Data Access Committees.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Article
- How Single Institutional Review Boards Manage Their Own Conflicts of Interest: Findings From a National Interview Study.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2019Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Regarding Research Ethics Committees Among Health Care Faculty at Two Public Universities in Jordan.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Compliance with National Ethics Requirements for Human-Subject Research in Non-biomedical Sciences in Brazil: A Changing Culture?Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Ethics Review for a Multi-Site Project Involving Tribal Nations in the Northern Plains.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2016Article
- Canadian research ethics board members' attitudes toward benefits from clinical trials.BMC medical ethics · 2015Article
- Providing ethical guidance for collaborative research in developing countries.Research ethics · 2015Article
- Those Responsible for Approving Research Studies Have Poor Knowledge of Research Study Design: a Knowledge Assessment of Institutional Review Board Members.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2015Article
- A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.PloS one · 2015Article
- How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies.Journal of medical ethics · 2014Article
- Article
- How good does the science have to be in proposals submitted to Institutional Review Boards? An interview study of Institutional Review Board personnel.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2013Article
- Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards.Research in nursing & health · 2013Article
- Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand.BMC medical ethics · 2013Article
- How IRBs view and make decisions about social risks.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.
methodsI conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).
resultsInterviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are "merely following the regulations," and their process is "open," impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and "the community values," and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.
conclusionsThis study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs--to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.