TITLE

View IRB process as a help, not an obstacle to research

PUB. DATE
August 2007
SOURCE
Clinical Trials Administrator;Aug2007, Vol. 5 Issue 8, p91
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article presents tips on how clinical trial administrators and investigators can improve their own institutional review board (IRB) applications. It is important for them to show clinical significance in their protocols, and this should be done right before the protocol is submitted for IRB review. It is also necessary that they should also provide IRB and ethics training to staff.
ACCESSION #
25887268

 

Related Articles

  • Streamlining the ethics review system. Lough, Shannon // CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal;1/1/2016, Vol. 188 Issue 1, pE10 

    The article reports that research ethics boards in Quebec and Ontario are being streamlined in an effort to increase multisite clinical trial efficiency. Topics discussed include the Clinical Trials Ontario (CTO) launching a Web-based system to streamline applications and ethics reviews,...

  • Human-subjects research: Trial and error. Ledford, Heidi // Nature;8/2/2007 Supplement, Vol. 448 Issue 7153, p530 

    The article focuses on the efforts of researchers to come up with alternatives to institutional review boards (IRBs) that would determine if a proposed research is ethically sound. It mentions the problems encountered by most researchers in many countries due to the presence of a complex network...

  • Using Central IRBs for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States. Flynn, Kathryn E.; Hahn, Cynthia L.; Kramer, Judith M.; Check, Devon K.; Dombeck, Carrie B.; Soo Bang; Perlmutter, Jane; Khin-Maung-Gyi, Felix A.; Weinfurt, Kevin P. // PLoS ONE;Jan2013, Vol. 8 Issue 1, Special section p1 

    Research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials...

  • The right to withdraw: What does it really mean?  // IRB Advisor;Sep2008, Vol. 8 Issue 9, p99 

    The article provides an understanding about the right of a study participant to withdraw from a clinical research. The problems regarding the review of language of informed consent documents and federal regulations governing withdrawal are tackled. It also emphasizes the need for institutional...

  • NCI provides ethical, legal guidelines for handling biospecimen resources.  // Clinical Trials Administrator;Jul2008, Vol. 6 Issue 7, p75 

    The article focuses on the report "The National Cancer Institute Best Practices for Biospecimen Resources," published by the National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. The report offers a guide for clinical trial sites and institutional review boards (IRBs) concerning the handling of...

  • The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study. Van Luijn, H. E. M.; Aaronson, N. K.; Keus, R. B.; Musschenga, A. W. // Journal of Medical Ethics;Mar2006, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p170 

    Objectives: There are indications that institutional review board (IRB) members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio (RBR) of a specific phase II...

  • INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS: IS THIS THE LEAST WORST WE CAN DO? Hyman, David A. // Northwestern University Law Review;2007 Special Issue, Vol. 101 Issue 2, p749 

    The article discusses strategies for improving the status quo of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the U.S. The author mentions that instead of criticizing an individual research project, the fact of IRB approval means that the institutions is on the line for any inefficiencies. IRB approval...

  • Streamlining Adverse Event Reporting in Trials. Wechsler, Jill // Applied Clinical Trials;Jun2005, Vol. 14 Issue 6, p32 

    The article focuses on issues concerning soaring volume of adverse event reports (AERs) that sponsors and clinical investigators file with institutional review boards (IRBs). Current rules encourage researchers and sponsors to report all unsuspected, serious or related adverse events to a number...

  • Institutional review boards - a mixed blessing. Saleem, Taimur; Khalid, Umair // International Archives of Medicine;2011, Vol. 4 Issue 1, p19 

    Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are an important checkpoint for all types of research in medicine. Although these bodies originated primarily in the developed world, they have special contemporary consideration in the context of developing countries due to the large number of clinical trials...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics