ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2021
Challenges and lessons learned for institutional review board procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accelerating start-up cycles in investigator-initiated multicenter clinical trials.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Exploring views of South African research ethics committees on pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19.Research ethics · 2024Article
- Article
- The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Leveraging CTSA hubs for rapid, large-scale, high-impact research: A case study during a global public health emergency.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CTSA Clinical Research Centers over 2 years.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- The NJ Alliance for Clinical and Translational Science (NJ ACTS) experience: Responding at "warp speed" to COVID-19.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Recruiting underrepresented individuals in a double pandemic: Lessons learned in a randomized control trial.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Managing the risks and benefits of clinical research in response to a pandemic.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- Human Research Protections during Emergencies: An Integrative Review.Ethics & human researchReview
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical research landscape in America. The most urgent challenge has been to rapidly review protocols submitted by investigators that were designed to learn more about or intervene in COVID-19. International Review Board (IRB) offices developed plans to rapidly review protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey was conducted with the IRB Directors at Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions as well as two focus groups. Across the CTSA institutions, 66% reviewed COVID-19 protocols across all their IRB committees, 22% assigned protocols to just one committee, and 10% created a new committee for COVID-19 protocols. Fifty-two percent reported COVID-19 protocols were reviewed much faster, 41% somewhat faster, and 7% at the same speed as other protocols. Three percent reported that the COVID-19 protocols were reviewed with much better quality, 32% reported slightly better quality, and 65% reported the reviews were of the same quality as similar protocols before the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs were able to respond to the emergent demand for reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most of the increased review capacity was due to extra effort by IRB staff and members and not changes that will be easily implemented across all research going forward.
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.