Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33707807›Full record

ArticleIRB

A Study of Reliance Agreement Templates Used by U.S. Research Institutions.

David B Resnik, Juliet Taylor, Kathryn Morris, Min Shi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

David B ResnikNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Juliet TaylorDuke University, Bioethics and Science Policy Program.
Kathryn MorrisNew York University.
Min ShiNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Center for Practical Bioethics · USNational Institute of Health Sciences · LKNational Institutes of Health · USNew York University · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999
6 · The paper itself

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

cooperative researchhuman subjectslegal liabilityreliance agreementstemplates

Identifiers

PMID33707807
PMCPMC7946149
OpenAlexW2912500822

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.