ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023
Implementation of single IRB review for multisite human subjects research: Persistent challenges and possible solutions.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Responses to Commentaries on "Ethics as if Your Life Depended on It".Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the National Dental PBRN central IRB since its inception in 2014 until 2025.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- 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
- Multi-site research using electronic health record data: Lessons learned from a case study.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA).HRB open research · 2024Article
- Perspectives of Researchers and Research Team Members Regarding Their Experience with sIRBs.Ethics & human researchArticle
- Filling the Network Gap in Research Ethics: Analyzing Ethical Issues at Scale in Big Team Science.The Hastings Center reportArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.
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.