ReviewJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2018
Meeting the Challenge: The National Cancer Institute's Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research.
Review in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethics review of multi-centre trials in India: a survey of researchers and ethics committee members on perspectives, challenges, and opportunities.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the National Dental PBRN central IRB since its inception in 2014 until 2025.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- A comparison of institutional review board models and study efficiency in the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes Cohort Consortium.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Observational
- Article
- Article
- Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Economic analysis of a single institutional review board data exchange standard in multisite clinical studies.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
- Article
- Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance.Ethics & human research · 2021Article
- Transforming the Early Drug Development Paradigm at the National Cancer Institute: The Formation of NCI's Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019Article
- The impact of central IRB's on informed consent readability and trial adherence in SPRINT.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- A Rare Opportunity: Examining the Experience of a New Institutional Review Board.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- "You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Measuring IRB Regulatory Compliance: Development, Testing, and Use of the National Cancer Institute StART Tool.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science.The Hastings Center reportArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a new policy that requires a single institutional review board (IRB) of record be used for all protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States, effective January 2018. This policy affects several hundred clinical trials opened annually across the NIH. Limited data exist to compare the use of a single IRB to that of multiple local IRBs, so some institutions are resistant to or distrustful of single IRBs. Since 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has funded a central IRB (CIRB) that provides human patient reviews for its extensive national cancer clinical trials program. This paper presents data to show the adoption, efficiencies gained, and satisfaction of the CIRB among NCI trial networks and reviews key lessons gleaned from 16 years of experience that may be informative for others charged with implementation of the new NIH single-IRB policy.
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.