ArticleThe Journal of surgical research2016
Time required to review research protocols at 10 Veterans Affairs Institutional Review Boards.
Article in The Journal of surgical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 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
- Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Assessing the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards: Levels of Initial Reviews.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Barriers to conducting a multi-center randomized controlled trial of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (and how to overcome them).Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
- The IRB structure and medical research reform.Clinical and translational medicine · 2018Article
- The regulation of clinical research: What's love got to do with it?Learning health systems · 2018Article
- Effects of Regulatory Support Services on Institutional Review Board Turnaround Times.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2017Article
- A personalized Institutional Review Board Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 30 months.International journal of academic medicineArticle
- Operational Characteristics of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite perceptions that institutional review boards (IRBs) delay research, little is known about how long it takes to secure IRB approval. We retrospectively quantified IRB review times at 10 large Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.
methodsWe collected IRB records pertaining to a stratified random sample of research protocols drawn from 10 of the 26 largest VA IRBs. Two independent analysts abstracted dates from the IRB records, from which we calculated overall and incremental review times. We used multivariable linear regression to assess variation in total and incremental review times by IRB and review level (i.e., exempt, expedited, or full board) and to identify potential targets for efforts to improve the efficiency and uniformity of the IRB review process.
resultsIn a sample of 277 protocols, the mean review time was 112 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 105-120). Compared with full-board reviews at IRB 1, average review times at IRBs 3, 8, 9, and 10 were 27 (95% CI: 6-48), 37 (95% CI: 11-63), 45 (95% CI: 20-69), and 24 (95% CI: 2-45) d shorter, and at IRB 6, times were 56 (95% CI: 28-84) d longer. Across all IRBs, expedited reviews were 44 (95% CI: 30-58) d shorter on average than were full-board reviews, with no significant difference between exempt and full-board reviews. However, after subtracting the time required for Research and Development Committee review, exempt reviews were 21 (95% CI: 1-41) d shorter on average than were full-board reviews.
conclusionsIRB review times differ significantly by IRB and review level. Few VA IRBs approach a consensus panel goal of 60 d for IRB review. The unexpectedly longer review times for exempt protocols in the VA can be attributed to time required for Research and Development Committee review. Prospective, routine collection of key time points in the IRB review process could inform IRB-specific initiatives for reducing VA IRB review times.
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.