ArticleEthics & human research2019
Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.
Article in Ethics & human research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Researcher awareness and submission practices to ethics committees in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Enhancing Reciprocity, Equity and Quality of Ethics Review for Multisite Research During Public Health Crises: The Experience of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition Ethics Working Group.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023Article
- Considerations of sex and gender dimensions by research ethics committees: a scoping review.International health · 2022Article
- Article
- Key lessons and strategies for implementing single IRB review in the Trial Innovation Network.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance.Ethics & human research · 2021Article
- The status of central ethical reviewing and challenges regarding its introduction to non-interventional studies in Japan.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2021Article
- When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.Ethics & human research · 2020Article
- Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
New federal policies require single IRB review for multisite studies, but many questions remain about how these IRBs will use local knowledge. The findings from our study, the first to examine how single IRBs perceive needs for local knowledge, reveal several challenges. Study respondents identified four potentially relevant types of local knowledge: about culture and linguistics, about geography and socioeconomics, about the researchers, and about the institutions. Such knowledge can potentially be obtained through local sites, but single IRBs may be unaware of potentially relevant local information, and lack of informal relationships may impede single IRBs' reviews and interactions with researchers. While a recent, commonly used, standardized single-IRB form asks three basic questions about local information, our findings suggest potential needs for additional information and, thus, have important implications for practice, policy, and research.
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.