ReviewChest2015
Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges.
Review in Chest, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 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
72 citing papers in PubMed.
- US jail and prison institutional research policies: a lever in access to research for incarcerated people.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Retractions in Psychology and Psychiatry in Web of Science : A Bioethical Perspective.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Review
- Assessment of real-world evidence research competencies in federated research networks: a maternal health fellowship program evaluation.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Structural characteristics of research ethics committees in Japan and their relevance to regulatory science: a nationwide descriptive study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Beyond the ethics deflection: Why patient burden is a scientific review question, not just an IRB concern.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Magnetoencephalography in human neuroscience research: planning, piloting, implementation and quality assurance.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- Ethical Frameworks for Conducting Social Challenge Studies.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Review
- What do Tanzanian Research Ethics Committees prioritise? A quantitative analysis of reviewer comments using Emanuel's framework.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Employing Common Morality to Address Ethical Issues in Genetics Research With Indigenous People: The Ọmọlúàbí Ideology.American journal of biological anthropology · 2026Review
- A framework for developing successful academic-industry partnerships for cardiovascular innovations.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Review
- Research ethics committees and regulation of climate change and health research.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Advancing health research practices among forcibly displaced populations: A multidisciplinary stakeholder workshop.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Know your scientist: KYC as biosecurity infrastructure.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- The collaboration of surgical education fellows' (CoSEF) guide to designing, executing, and publishing surgical education research.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 2026Article
- Ethical oversight in impact evaluations: External advisory committees to assess programming risks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Improving Large Language Models' Summarization Accuracy by Adding Highlights to Discharge Notes: Comparative Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- [Are we expecting too much from existing research ethics committees?]Salud colectiva · 2025Article
- Nonscientific Members of Institutional Review Boards.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Principal Investigator Responsibility for Flagging Research with Dual-Use or Pandemic Risk.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025Article
- Exploring Ethics: Understanding the Role of Privacy Policies and Institutional Review Boards in Digital Health Companies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
12 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codified in US regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the system of IRB review and oversight. Evidence of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear evidence of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide adequate and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future research.
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.