ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2015
Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool to Guide Quality Improvement.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2020Pooled it
- Exploring Researchers' Perspectives on Institutional Review Boards Functions in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Utilizing the IRB-RAT Tool.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Article
- Evaluation of a University's Institutional Review Board Based on Campus Feedback: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2019Article
- A Rare Opportunity: Examining the Experience of a New Institutional Review Board.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are intended to protect those who participate in research. However, because there is no established measure of IRB quality, it is unclear whether these committees achieve their goal. The IRB Researcher Assessment Tool is a previously validated, internally normed, proxy measure of IRB quality that assesses 45 distinct IRB activities and functions. We administered this instrument to a sample of investigators and IRB members at a large urban VA Medical Center. We describe a systematic approach to analyze and interpret survey responses that can identify the IRB activities and functions most in need of quality improvement. The proposed approach to empirical data analysis and presentation could inform local initiatives to improve the quality of IRB review.
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.