ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2017
IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of "Ethics Creep" on Research, Teaching and Learning in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Survey of Canadian Researchers' Experience with Research Ethics Boards.Canadian review of sociology = Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2026Article
- Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in cancer studies.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Systems approach to assessing and improving local human research Institutional Review Board performance.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinical research involving humans is critically important, but it is a lengthy and expensive process. Most studies require institutional review board (IRB) approval. Our objective is to identify predictors of delays or accelerations in the IRB review process and apply this knowledge to inform process change in an effort to improve IRB efficiency, transparency, consistency and communication.
methodsWe analyzed timelines of protocol submissions to determine protocol or IRB characteristics associated with different processing times. Our evaluation included single variable analysis to identify significant predictors of IRB processing time and machine learning methods to predict processing times through the IRB review system. Based on initial identified predictors, changes to IRB workflow and staffing procedures were instituted and we repeated our analysis.
resultsOur analysis identified several predictors of delays in the IRB review process including type of IRB review to be conducted, whether a protocol falls under Veteran's Administration purview and specific staff in charge of a protocol's review.
conclusionsWe have identified several predictors of delays in IRB protocol review processing times using statistical and machine learning methods. Application of this knowledge to process improvement efforts in two IRBs has led to increased efficiency in protocol review. The workflow and system enhancements that are being made support our four-part goal of improving IRB efficiency, consistency, transparency, and communication.
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.