ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Evaluation of the National Dental PBRN central IRB since its inception in 2014 until 2025.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: The National Dental PBRN Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB) at the University of Alabama-Birmingham (UAB) was established in 2014 to reduce administrative burden while allowing Local Context Review (LCR) by local institutions (LIs). The National Institutes of Health implemented a single IRB policy in 2018; CIRB meets its requirements. Methods: The CIRB reviews study protocols, documents, consent forms, and HIPAA forms. Once CIRB approval is obtained, the study packet is sent to LIs for LCR. LIs may revise specific sections agreed on in reliance agreements but must make determinations regarding the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Once a LI completes a reliance agreement and the LCR, the CIRB becomes responsible for subsequent reviews. Results: The CIRB has reviewed 27 studies, 8 of which were declared exempt; LIs are responsible for exempt studies. Nineteen studies were declared expedited or full review. For all expedited/full review studies combined, the mean (SD) calendar days from initial submission to approval was 55.2 (35.2) days; for studies with available tracking, 35% of this time was due to waiting on study investigator responses. Post-approval submissions for 19 studies, such as revision amendments, continuing reviews, site amendments, prompt reports, and personnel amendments, totaled to 374. Conclusions: The CIRB did not ensure a shorter approval time because LCR approvals must wait for initial CIRB approval, but LIs did benefit by starting with an already-approved packet. However, substantial benefits were realized later because subsequent amendments and annual reviews only required CIRB review, saving LIs from involvement in these reviews.
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.