Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have been criticized for overstepping their authority by requiring research protocols to meet requirements that go beyond regulatory approval criteria. The youngest National Cancer Institute (NCI) central IRB (CIRB), the Cancer Prevention and Control (CPC) CIRB, was studied with the NCI Stipulation Analysis Review Tool (StART), which categorized 1,049 stipulations in 51 determination letters covering 30 approved protocols. NCI StART reduced the potential for subjective uncertainty in assessing the wide range of content in the stipulations. The tool determined the board functioned in accordance with federal mandates, with 80% of rendered stipulations aligning with IRB approval criteria. A complementary article provides background data and findings from the first 3 years’ experience of the CPC CIRB.

Keywords

IRB stipulations regulatory compliance tool clinical trials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

Grady

(2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 3-19. doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3

Adams

Kaewkungwal

Limphattharacharoen

Prakobtham

Pengsaa

Khusmith

(2014). Is your ethics committee efficient? Using “IRB metrics” as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the faculty of tropical medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand. PLoS ONE, 9(11), e113356. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0113356

Angell

E. L.

Bryman

Ashcroft

R. E.

Dixon-Woods

(2008). An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: The ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 17, 131-136. doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.022756

Blackwood

R. A.

Maio

R. F.

Mrdjenovich

A. J.

VandenBosch

T. M.

Gordon

P. S.

Shipman

E. L.

Hamilton

T. A.

(2015). Analysis of the nature of IRB contingencies required for informed consent document approval. Accountability in Research, 22, 237-245. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.956866

Clapp

J. T.

Gleason

K. A.

Joffe

(2017). Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters. Social Science & Medicine, 194, 25-33. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.10.013

Grady

(2015). Institutional review boards: Purpose and challenges. Chest, 148, 1148-1155. doi:10.1378/chest.15-0706

Gunsalus

C. K.

Bruner

E. M.

Burbules

N. C.

Dash

Finkin

Goldberg

J. P.

. . . Pratt

M. G.

(2006). Mission creep in the IRB world. Science, 312, 1441-1441. doi:10.1126/science.1121479

Kent

(1999). Responses by four local research ethics committees to submitted proposals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25, 274-277.

Krippendorff

(1970). Estimating the reliability, systematic error and random error of interval data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 61-70. doi:10.1177/001316447003000105

10.

Lidz

C. W.

Appelbaum

P. S.

Arnold

Candilis

Gardner

Myers

Simon

(2012). How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Academic Medicine, 87, 969-974. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e

11.

Massett

H. A.

Hampp

S. L.

Goldberg

J. L.

Mooney

Parreco

L. K.

Minasian

. . . Abrams

J. S.

(2018). Meeting the challenge: The National Cancer Institute’s Central Institutional Review Board for multi-site research. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 36, 819-824. doi:10.1200/jco.2017.76.9836

12.

National Cancer Institute. (2018). Division of Cancer Prevention scientific scope. Retrieved from https://prevention.cancer.gov/about-dcp/scientific-scope

13.

National Institutes of Health. (2018). Final NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site research. Retrieved from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-094.html

14.

Nicholls

S. G.

Hayes

T. P.

Brehaut

J. C.

McDonald

Weijer

Saginur

Fergusson

(2015). A scoping review of empirical research relating to quality and effectiveness of research ethics review. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0133639. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133639

15.

Olsen

D. P.

Mahrenholz

(2000). IRB-identified ethical issues in nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing, 16, 140-148. doi:10.1053/pn.2000.5918

16.

Sansone

R. A.

McDonald

Hanley

Sellbom

Gaither

G. A.

(2004). The stipulations of one institutional review board: A five year review. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 308-310. doi:10.1136/jme.2002.002105

17.

Tsoka-Gwegweni

J. M.

Wassenaar

D. R.

(2014). Using the Emanuel et al. framework to assess ethical issues raised by a biomedical research ethics committee in South Africa. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 36-45. doi:10.1177/1556264614553172

18.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2017). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-01058.pdf

19.

van Lent

Rongen

G. A.

Out

H. J

. (2014). Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by research ethics committees: Analysis of comments raised during ethical review. BMC Medical Ethics, 15, Article 83. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-15-83

20.

White

R. F.

(2007). Institutional review board mission creep: The common rule, social science, and the nanny state. The Independent Review, 11, 547-564.

21.

Whitney

S. N.

(2016). Institutional review boards: A flawed system of risk management. Research Ethics, 12, 182-200. doi:10.1177/1747016116649993

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.70 MB