Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39830605›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process.

Stephanie R Morain, Juli Bollinger, Megan K Singleton, Mia Terkowitz, Christine Weston, Jeremy Sugarman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Stephanie R MorainJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7278-7517
Juli BollingerJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Megan K SingletonJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mia TerkowitzInstitute for Clinical and Translational Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christine WestonDepartment of Health Policy & Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6212-1086
Jeremy SugarmanJohns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7022-8332

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Local context is the most common concern regarding use of a single institutional review board (sIRB). Yet what "local context" constitutes remains underspecified. Developing a shared understanding of the goals of local context review, the categories of information that should be considered, as well as the types of studies for which sIRB review may be inappropriate, are critical for ensuring that sIRB review provides adequate protections for human subjects. Methods: We conducted a three-round modified Delphi process convening individuals with expertise in the conduct and oversight of multisite research. Delphi surveys explored: (1) the goals of local context review; (2) the types of information that should be considered; and (3) study types that should be exempted from sIRB requirements. Results: Twenty-one experts participated. Experts agreed that (1) local context review should aim to both protect local participants and ensure compliance and (2) that four types of information should be considered (population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws). There was less consensus about whether existing processes facilitated adequate consideration of this information. Experts agreed that exemptions from sIRB requirements should be permitted but disagreed about when and in what circumstances. Conclusion: There is overlapping consensus about both the goals of local context review and the types of information that should be assessed. Future work remains, however, to develop effective processes to best realize the goals of local context review - and do so with appropriate efficiency.

Indexed as

Delphi studieshuman subjects researchlocal contextResearch ethicssingle IRBs

Identifiers

PMID39830605
PMCPMC11736292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.