ArticleCritical care medicine2014
Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study.
Article in Critical care medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical considerations of prospective data collection for stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR): an overview from the STOPSTORM.eu consortium.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Six Steps to Begin a Quality Improvement Collaborative.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2025Article
- Differences in Prevalence of Transfusion Protocols between Critically Ill Neurologic and Non-Neurologic Patient Populations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities.European journal for philosophy of science · 2023Article
- Variations in Administrative Approvals During the COVID-19 Pandemic at Participating Sites in the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Network Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: COVID-19 Registry: A Cross-Sectional Study.Critical care explorations · 2022Article
- Methodological challenges in conducting instrumentation research in non-communicative palliative care patients.Applied nursing research : ANR · 2020Article
- Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicenter survey.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2018Article
- A multisite study of performance drivers among institutional review boards.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2017Article
- Evaluation of RBC Transfusion Practice in Adult ICUs and the Effect of Restrictive Transfusion Protocols on Routine Care.Critical care medicine · 2017Observational
- Pragmatic Trials in Maintenance Dialysis: Perspectives from the Kidney Health Initiative.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2016Review
- Protocols and Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study.Critical care medicine · 2015Observational
- Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterize variation in the institutional review board application process of a multicenter, observational critical care study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Survey analysis of 36 investigators who applied for participation in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs.
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsAnalysis of investigator-specific characteristics, institutional review board process, application and approval dates, and level of difficulty in obtaining approval. Surveys were analyzed from 36 sites (95%) that applied for institutional review board approval. Level of review ranged from full board, expedited, to exempt. Seventy-five percent of applications were submitted by an experienced investigator while 25% were submitted by a less experienced investigator. Median time to institutional review board approval was 30 days (interquartile range, 14-54) and ranged from 5 days to 5.5 months. Time to approval was 29 days (interquartile range, 17-48) for applications submitted by an experienced investigator compared with 97 days (interquartile range, 25-159) for those submitted by a less experienced investigator (p = 0.08). Subjective level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators (4 of 10; interquartile range, 2-8) vs experienced investigators (2 of 10; interquartile range, 1-3) (p = 0.04). Four sites cited institutional review board concern regarding waiver of consent as a major barrier to approval and were required to perform revisions or participate in board meetings regarding this concern.
conclusionsIn a multicenter, observational critical care study, significant variation was observed between sites in all aspects of the institutional review board evaluation and approval process. The level of difficulty was significantly higher for less experienced investigators with a trend toward longer time to institutional review board approval. Variation in institutional review board interpretation of waiver of informed consent regulations was cited as a major barrier to approval.
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.