Observational studyContemporary clinical trials2026
A comparison of institutional review board models and study efficiency in the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes Cohort Consortium.
Observational study in Contemporary clinical trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInstitutional review board (IRB) approval is a key step in site activation and study initiation. Single IRBs aim to improve the timeliness of IRB review through centralization and standardization, whereas local IRBs conduct reviews only for specific sites. In Cycle 1 of the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort Consortium, 110 sites chose either single or local IRB review, providing the opportunity to compare the efficiency of single versus local IRBs within one multicenter observational study.
objectivesData were collected from the ECHO Coordinating Center at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Primary outcomes included: 1) time from IRB submission to approval and 2) time from regulatory pack receipt to first participant enrollment. Secondary outcomes included: 1) time from regulatory pack receipt to IRB submission, 2) time from IRB approval to site activation, and 3) time from site activation to first participant enrollment. We compared these outcomes between sites using local versus single IRBs.
resultsNo significant differences were identified between the local and single IRB groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. The time from IRB submission to approval was similar for local and single IRBs (median [IQR]: 20 days [10-33]; 19 days [11-27]; p = 0.71, respectively). The time from regulatory pack receipt to first participant enrollment was similar for local and single IRBs (median [IQR]: 243 days [16-309]; 191 days [137-233]; p = 0.50, respectively).
conclusionMultiple factors influence review timelines. Single IRBs do not guarantee faster review; additional work is needed to evaluate their impact on study timelines.
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.