ArticleJournal of graduate medical education2012
Variability in obtaining institutional review board approval for quality improvement activities in residency programs.
Article in Journal of graduate medical education, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protecting Against Unintended Risk From Student Quality Improvement Projects in Health Care.Advances in health information science and practice · 2026Article
- Multinational Pediatric Critical Care Research in the Arab Gulf Region across 35 Pediatric Intensive Care Units: Ethical Approval Timelines and Lessons Learned.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2026Article
- 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
- Ethical oversight in quality improvement and quality improvement research: new approaches to promote a learning health care system.BMC medical ethics · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuality improvement (QI) activities are an important part of residency training. National studies are needed to inform best practices in QI training and experience for residents. The impact of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process on such studies is not well described.
methodsThis observational study looked at time, length, comfort level, and overall quality of experience for 42 residency training programs in obtaining approval or exemption for a nationally based educational QI study.
resultsFor the 42 programs in the study, the time period to IRB approval/exemption was highly variable, ranging from less than 1 week to 56.5 weeks; mean and median time was approximately 18 weeks (SD, 10.8). Greater reported comfort with the IRB process was associated with less time to obtain approval (r = -.50; P < .01; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.23). A more positive overall quality of experience with the IRB process was also associated with less time to obtain IRB approval (r = -.60; P < .01; 95% CI, -0.74 to -0.36). DISCUSSION: The IRB process for residency programs initiating QI studies shows considerable variance that is not explained by attributes of the projects. New strategies are needed to assist and expedite IRB processes for QI research in educational settings and reduce interinstitutional variability and increase comfort level among educators with the IRB process.
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.