Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38944885›Full record

ArticleEthics & human research

Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review.

Stephanie R Morain, Megan K Singleton, Kate Tsiandoulas, Juli Bollinger, Jeremy Sugarman

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Ethics & human research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Stephanie R MorainAssociate professor in the Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Health Policy & Management and core faculty at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University.
Megan K SingletonAssociate dean for human research protection and director of the Human Research Protection Program at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Kate TsiandoulasPolicy analyst with the Duke Margolis Institute for Health Policy.
Juli BollingerResearch scientist at the Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Jeremy SugarmanDeputy director for medicine and Harvey M. Meyerhoff Professor of Bioethics and Medicine at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University.

Funding

QAQC Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR003098 · NCATS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2019 to 2023
$57.7M
NCATS NIH HHS 3UL1TR003098-04S1NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR003098
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicPatient RightsCommon Rulehuman subjects researchlocal IRBsmultisite studiesresearch ethicssingle IRBs

Identifiers

PMID38944885
PMCPMC13682548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.