ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery2014
Institutional review boards: what's old? What's new? What needs to change?
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does the emotional burden of participating in trauma-related surveys discourage future participation? A population-based study.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025Article
- Article
- Research Ethics Committees in Laboratory Medicine.EJIFCC · 2020Review
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
Abstract
summaryInstitutional review boards have come under fire for being burdened with work, causing delays in the progress of human subject research without improvements in the protection of human subjects. Over the years, there have been increases in the numbers of clinical trials, the use of multisite studies, and the amount of bureaucracy, but there have been no changes to the system to accommodate these advancements. Proposed changes include the use of a centralized institutional review board for multisite studies and harmonization of reporting requirements among agencies. The purposes of this article are to review the history, structure, and purpose of the institutional review board, to assess the criticisms of the current system, and to discuss solutions for improvement.
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.