An Institutional Review Board-Based Clinical Research Quality Assurance Program

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pramod M. Lad ◽  
Rebecca Dahl
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P Diamond ◽  
Esther Eisenberg ◽  
Hao Huang ◽  
Christos Coutifaris ◽  
Richard S Legro ◽  
...  

Background/aims: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Methods: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. Results: While time required for actual institutional review board submission’s review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7–24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. Conclusion: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health’s goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.


2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine McConville ◽  
Susan L. Thibeault

In this article, we will discuss the need for clinician-driven clinical research in the field of speech-language pathology, identify common barriers to such research endeavors, and offer solutions for overcoming those barriers to increase effective clinician-initiated research engagement and output. Using the University of Wisconsin-Madison Voice and Swallow Clinics' developing clinical research program as an example, we will demonstrate how research can be incorporated into a busy clinical schedule with appropriate support and resources. Our own endeavors with this model have seen an increase in Institutional Review Board (IRB) submissions and approvals as well as publications from clinicians who had not previously considered themselves clinical investigators.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document