Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31104551›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2019

A Rare Opportunity: Examining the Experience of a New Institutional Review Board.

Linda Parreco, Lisa Rooney, Sharon Hampp, Amanda Brown, Lori Minasian

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Linda Parreco1 National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9536-0890
Lisa Rooney2 Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7310-6303
Sharon Hampp1 National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Amanda Brown1 National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.
Lori Minasian1 National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA.

Funding

CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CIntramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001E
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The process of creating a new Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Committee (REC) presents many challenges; however, little has been published to describe this experience. Thus, many questions about creating a new IRB/REC and the challenges they face remain. The establishment of a new federal-wide single IRB provided a rare opportunity to describe these experience and outcomes. A census of the activity and outcomes of this new board is reported for its first 3 years of operation: The convened board approved 50 protocols, required an average of 93.24 days and 2.76 reviews for protocol approval, and issued an average of 31.82 stipulations per protocol. The census data helped to identify several issues that impacted the board's outcomes and it serves as a baseline for future comparisons. The overall dynamics, challenges, and outcomes of this new single IRB are discussed.

Indexed as

Clinical Trial Protocols as TopicData CollectionEthics Committees, ResearchHumansNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)United Statesclinical trialseducationIRB decision makingIRB membershipIRB metricsperformancequality

Identifiers

PMID31104551
PMCPMC6565466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.