ReviewThe Milbank quarterly2011
Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.
Review in The Milbank quarterly, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 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
66 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of shared institutional review board compared with multiple individual site institutional review board models in a multisite clinical trial.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2023Trial
- Responses to Commentaries on "Ethics as if Your Life Depended on It".Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Guidelines needed for the use of AI in the preparation or review of IRB, IBC, and IACUC applications.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- The Challenges of Web Scraping and AI for Research Ethics in Canada: A Survey of University REBs.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Review
- Protocol for a pragmatic trial comparing navigator and automated virtual interventions for guaranteeing adherence to fecal immunochemical testing (NAVIGATE-FIT).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2026Article
- Fitting a square peg in a round hole? A mixed-methods study on research ethics and collaborative health and social care research involving 'vulnerable' groups.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- A transformative solution to build effective, transparent, and resilient "fit-for-purpose" national health research ethics systems.Health research policy and systems · 2024Review
- IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA).HRB open research · 2024Article
- Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Article
- A study on the normative path of ethics review in China: based on the perspective of Panopticism.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- 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
- Understanding Constraints and Enablers of Turnaround Time for Ethics Review: The Case of Institutional Review Boards in Tanzania.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.Accountability in research · 2021Article
- Non-cancer clinical trials start-up metrics at an academic medical center: Implications for advancing research.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance.Ethics & human research · 2021Article
- Insights into the perception that research ethics committees are a barrier to research with seriously ill children: A study of committee minutes and correspondence with researchers studying seriously ill children.Palliative medicine · 2020Article
- Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- The SMART IRB platform: A national resource for IRB review for multisite studies.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2019Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextFederal regulations mandate independent review and approval by an "institutional review board" (IRB) before studies that involve human research subjects may begin. Although many researchers strongly support the need for IRB review, they also contend that it is burdensome when it imposes costs that do not add to the protections afforded to research participants and that this burden threatens the viability of research. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently announced its intention to reform the regulations governing IRB review.
methodsWe used a search of the PubMed database, supplemented by a bibliographic review, to identify all existing primary data on the costs of IRB review. "Costs" were broadly defined to include both expenditures of time or money and constraints imposed on the scope of the research. Burdensome costs were limited to those that did not contribute to greater protections for the participants.
findingsEvidence from a total of fifty-two studies shows that IRBs operate at different levels of efficiency; that waiting to obtain IRB approval has, in some instances, delayed project initiation; that IRBs presented with identical protocols sometimes asked for different and even competing revisions; and that some decisions made (and positions held) by IRBs are not in accord with federal policy guidance.
conclusionsWhile the evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is burden associated with IRB review, it is too limited to allow for valid estimates of its magnitude or to serve as the basis for formulating policies on IRB reform. The single exception is multicenter research, for which we found that review by several local IRBs is likely to be burdensome. No mechanism currently exists at the national level to gather systematic evidence on the intersection between research and IRB review. This gap is of concern in light of the changing nature of research and the increasingly important role that research is envisioned to play in improving the overall quality of health care.
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.