Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42663792›Full record

ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2026

Modernizing the Institutional Review Board Process for Implementation Science - A Narrative Review of Barriers and Ethical Considerations.

Abhishek Bazaz, Caroline Plott, Francoise A Marvel, Allison W Peng, Stacey Schott, Benjamin M Scirica, Jessica M Peña, Ankeet Bhatt, Laney K Jones, Seth S Martin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Abhishek BazazCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Caroline PlottCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Francoise A MarvelCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Allison W PengCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Stacey SchottCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Benjamin M SciricaTIMI Study Group, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jessica M PeñaDalio Institute of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Ankeet BhattDepartment of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA.
Laney K JonesAmgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Seth S MartinCiccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. smart100@jhmi.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review highlights the barriers and facilitators that implementation science studies face in the institutional review board (IRB) approval pathway and provides recommendations on how to potentially streamline this process. RECENT

findingsSignificant gaps persist between evidence-based recommendations and real-world clinical practice. Implementation science projects investigate how to promote uptake of evidence-based and guideline-recommended practices. Regulatory ambiguity may arise because implementation science involves aspects of traditional research and quality improvement. Currently, there is a lack of well-delineated processes to determine the optimal review pathway for implementation science projects. Current research review pathways do not facilitate efficient approval for implementation science projects due to ambiguous IRB submission guidelines, limited exposure to implementation science, and recent integration of digital tools. In this review, we suggest further development of expedited review pathways for low-risk projects, creation of tools for researchers to determine IRB application category, and further investment in digital health-focused implementation science projects and approval pathways to prepare for the emerging wave of implementation science and maximize the positive impact on patient health outcomes.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchImplementation ScienceHumansHuman research ethicsImplementation scienceInstitutional review boardQuality improvementResearch governanceResearch to practice

Identifiers

PMID42663792
PMCPMC13525008

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.