ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2018
The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responses to Commentaries on "Ethics as if Your Life Depended on It".Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- 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
- Assessing satisfaction and performance of the CUREC electronic submission system.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Reimagining IRB review to incorporate a clear and convincing standard of evidence.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Developing Quality and Efficiency of Institutional Review Board Review Under a Human Research Protection Program at a Leading Hospital in Central Southern China: A Descriptive Analysis of the First Three Years.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- COVID-19 pandemic response varies by clinical trial sponsor type.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Accelerating implementation of research in Learning Health Systems: Lessons learned from VA Health Services Research and NCATS Clinical Science Translation Award programs.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lengthy review times for institutional review boards (IRBs) are a well-known barrier to research. In response to numerous calls to reduce review times, we devised "Real-Time IRB," a process that drastically reduces IRB review time. In this, investigators and study staff attend the IRB meeting and make changes to the protocol while the IRB continues its meeting, so that final approval can be issued at the meeting. This achieved an overall reduction in time from submission to the IRB to final approval of 40%. While this process is time and resource intensive, and cannot address all delays in research, it shows great promise for increasing the pace by which research is translated to patient care.
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.