ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Initiation, Substance Use Trajectories, and the Social Determinants of Health in Persons Living With HIV Seeking Medication for Opioid Use Disorder.Substance abuse · 2023Trial
- 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
- IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA).HRB open research · 2024Article
- Recruitment into a Clinical Trial of People Living with Uncontrolled HIV Infection Who Inject Drugs: a Site Case Report from the CTN 67 CHOICES Study.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2022Article
- Article
- The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Perspectives on extended-release naltrexone induction among patients living with HIV and opioid use disorder: a qualitative analysis.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2021Article
- Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance.Ethics & human research · 2021Article
- Challenges and lessons learned for institutional review board procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Recruiting underrepresented individuals in a double pandemic: Lessons learned in a randomized control trial.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Barriers and facilitators to recruitment and enrollment of HIV-infected individuals with opioid use disorder in a clinical trial.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Perspectives of Researchers and Research Team Members Regarding Their Experience with sIRBs.Ethics & human researchArticle
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.
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.