Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35748820›Full record

ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.

Kimberley Serpico, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Luke Gelinas, Lauren Hartsmith, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Emily E Anderson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberley SerpicoHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0755-2233
Vasiliki RahimzadehStanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3537-7601
Luke GelinasAdvarra, Columbia, Maryland, USA.
Lauren HartsmithAdvarra, Columbia, Maryland, USA.
Holly Fernandez LynchPerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7813-9879
Emily E AndersonLoyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2197-1239
Harvard University · USLoyola University Chicago · USStanford University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

The Stanford Training Program in ELSI ResearchT32HG008953 · NHGRI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Mildred K. Cho, Meghan Halley · 2016 to 2026
$3.1M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG008953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInstitutional review board (IRB) expertise is necessarily limited by maintaining a manageable board size. IRBs are therefore permitted by regulation to rely on outside experts for review. However, little is known about whether, when, why, and how IRBs use outside experts.

methodsWe conducted a national survey of U.S. IRBs to characterize utilization of outside experts. Our study uses a descriptive, cross-sectional design to understand how IRBs engage with such experts and to identify areas where outside expertise is most frequently requested.

resultsThe survey response rate was 18.4%, with 55.4% of respondents reporting their institution's IRB uses outside experts. Nearly all respondents who reported using outside experts indicated they do so less than once a month, but occasionally each year (95%). The most common method of identifying an outside expert was securing a previously known subject matter expert (83.3%). Most frequently, respondents sought consultation for scientific expertise not held by current members (69.6%). Almost all respondents whose IRBs had used outside experts reported an overall positive impact on the IRB review process (91.5%).

conclusionsJust over half of the IRBs in our sample report use of outside experts; among them, outside experts were described as helpful, but their use was infrequent overall. Many IRBs report not relying on outside experts at all. This raises important questions about what type of engagement with outside experts should be viewed as optimal to promote the highest quality review. For example, few respondents sought assistance from a Community Advisory Board, which could address expertise gaps in community perspectives. Further exploration is needed to understand how to optimize IRB use of outside experts, including how to recognize when expertise is lacking, what barriers IRBs face in using outside experts, and perspectives on how outside expert review impacts IRB decision-making and review quality.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchResearch DesignCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSurveys and Questionnairesconsultanthuman subjects researchIRBIRB qualityoutside expertiseresearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID35748820
PMCPMC10360021
OpenAlexW4283386366

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.