Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28321137›Full record

ArticleHospital pharmacy2017

Navigating the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Process for Pharmacy-Related Research.

Marjorie Shaw Phillips, Osama Abdelghany, Susan Johnston, Rachel Rarus, Jennifer Austin-Szwak, Craig Kirkwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hospital pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marjorie Shaw Phillips
Osama Abdelghany
Susan Johnston
Rachel Rarus
Jennifer Austin-Szwak
Craig Kirkwood

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacists' specialized training and knowledge qualify them to lead and engage in research pertaining to optimal medication use. Performing research promotes pharmacy professionalism and fosters interdisciplinary collaboration. To conduct research appropriately, one must have thorough knowledge of when institutional review board (IRB) approval is required and how to successfully navigate IRB processes. The overarching mission of the IRB overseeing research at an organization per federal guidelines is to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects participating in research. This article discusses the following general pharmacy practice-based considerations relating to IRB processes: strategies for developing research projects, key distinctions between quality improvement and research, practical considerations for submitting IRB applications and documentation, different categories of IRB submission, informed consent and conditions for waivers or alterations of consent, and principal investigator obligations for approved research. Pharmacists should also account for organization-specific IRB processes when designing, submitting, and implementing research projects.

Indexed as

institutional review boardIRBpharmacy researchpharmacy residents

Identifiers

PMID28321137
PMCPMC5345908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.