ArticleEthics & human research
Perspectives of Researchers and Research Team Members Regarding Their Experience with sIRBs.
Article in Ethics & human research. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study examines the perspectives of researchers and other research team members who conducted National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded studies about their use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) review and onboarding process. More than 84% (n = 639) of respondents agreed that NIH-sponsored multisite clinical trials benefit from sIRB use. A higher proportion of super-users (>10 studies) of an sIRB than moderate users (1-10 studies) described the onboarding process positively (n = 119, 56% vs. n = 225, 42%, p = .01) and found sIRBs to be more cost-effective than a site-specific model (n = 113, 53.05% vs. n = 221, 41%, p <.01). Timeline delays were experienced by over 90% (n = 680) of respondents and an increased administrative burden was reported by almost half (n = 353, 47%) of respondents. Respondents described increased administrative burden for sIRB approvals when an institution-specific application was required (n = 299, 51% vs. n = 30, 29%, p <.01). Most researchers judged sIRBs to be beneficial. However, delays in approval, increased administrative burden, and associated compulsory institution-specific applications posed logistical challenges for researchers. Reform efforts must focus on aligning sIRB and local study site standards to optimize sIRB study review.
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.