ArticleIRB
A Study of Reliance Agreement Templates Used by U.S. Research Institutions.
Article in IRB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- How U.S. research institutions are responding to the single Institutional Review Board mandate.Accountability in research · 2018Article
- Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff.AJOB empirical bioethicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We performed a content analysis of reliance agreement templates from 73 of the top U.S. research institutions ranked by research funding. 67.1% of institutions in our sample use the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) template and 8.2% use the SMART IRB template. Although a significant percentage of institutions (45.2%) use their own custom template, many of these also use the OHRP template or the SMART IRB template. 21.9% of institutional templates have only the OHRP minimum 10 contractual provisions (or elements), 27.4% have 11 elements, 26% have 12-19 elements, and 24.7% have 20 or more elements. 5.5% of institutional templates require the relied-upon institution to indemnify the relying institution, 6.8% require the relying institution to indemnify the relied-upon institution, 8.2% require the relied-upon institution to have liability insurance, 15.1% require the relying institution to have liability insurance, 2.7% require the relied-upon institution to have accreditation, and none require the relying institution to have accreditation. The number of elements in the template was positively associated with total research funding and private institutional control. Our data indicate that institutions which are seeking reliance agreements for cooperative research involving human subjects are not likely to encounter many difficulties because most are using commonly employed templates and are not imposing potentially disputable requirements on parties to the agreement.
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.