ArticleEthics & human research2022
Demonstration Project: Transitioning a Research Network to New Single IRB Platforms.
Article in Ethics & human research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten years of Central IRB review for an NIH-funded large clinical trial network by an academic IRB: The NIH StrokeNet experience.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Leveraging the Expertise of the CTSA Program to Increase the Impact and Efficiency of Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Development, implementation, and dissemination of operational innovations across the trial innovation network.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Perspectives of Researchers and Research Team Members Regarding Their Experience with sIRBs.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since the 2016 National Institutes of Health (NIH) mandate to use a single IRB (sIRB) in multicenter research, institutions have struggled to operationalize the process. In this demonstration project, the University of Utah Trial Innovation Center assisted the Collaborative Pediatric Critical Care Research Network to transition from using individually negotiated reliance agreements and paper-based documentation to a new sIRB master agreement and an informatics platform to capture reliance documentation. Lessons learned that can guide other academic institutions and IRBs as they operationalize sIRBs included the need for sites to understand what type of engagement or reliance is required and their need to understand the difference between reliance and activation. Requirements around local review remain poorly understood. Further research is needed to determine approaches that can achieve the NIH vision of reviews becoming more efficient and improving study start-up times, relieving administrative burden while advancing human research protections.
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.