TITLE

Common problems can have major consequences

PUB. DATE
January 2009
SOURCE
Clinical Trials Administrator;Jan2009, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p5
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article presents tips and strategies from Jan Hewett, director of the University of Michigan Medical School institutional review board (IRB) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to prevent problems that could be created by non-compliance with regulations. Hewett stresses the need of the investigator to know about the IRB. An example of how a well-intentioned clinical trial (CT) change can have a little effect because of noncompliance is presented. Hewett suggests ways to educate investigators and to answer questions as they complete the protocol application.
ACCESSION #
35964734

 

Related Articles

  • Give research results to study participants.  // IRB Advisor;Aug2008, Vol. 8 Issue 8, p94 

    The article reports that a vast majority of study participants believe it is important to receive the results despite the potentially negative impact. Studies that looked at the impact of receiving results did report negative and beneficial reactions. Participants were open to receiving results...

  • Share Your Opinions. Ganter, Jane // Applied Clinical Trials;May2002, Vol. 11 Issue 5, p14 

    Focuses on the changes in the language and rules in clinical trials in the U.S. Publication of articles in helping potential research subjects; Aims of the proposed changes in institutional review boards (IRB) to stop inappropriate 'IRB shopping'; Improvement of informed consent process.

  • IRBs in the Spotlight. Wechler, Jill // Applied Clinical Trials;Oct2002, Vol. 11 Issue 10, p19 

    Reports that U.S. federal agencies seek to enhance institutional review board (IRB) operations. Protection of the rights of participants in clinical trials; Proposed policies to improve IRB; Importance of IRB in ensuring research integrity. INSETS: Clinical Trial Control and Conduct;Grounds...

  • For Institutional Review Boards, Decisions Can Be Subjective. Reynolds, Tom // JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute;10/16/2002, Vol. 94 Issue 20, p1518 

    Reports the process of evaluating a clinical trial protocol by the institutional review boards (IRB). Use of several approaches in the risk and benefits assessments; Lack of information in the protocol to evaluate specific questions; Increase in the transparency of the IRB decision-making process.

  • Creating an IRB Checklist to Protect Human Subjects in Clinical Trials. Spilker, Bert // Applied Clinical Trials;Sep2002, Vol. 11 Issue 9, p34 

    Editorial. Proposes a simple, economical system to contribute to the improvement of protection of human subjects in clinical trials. Checklist of questions for investigators to complete and submit to an institutional review board (IRB) along with the clinical protocol; Strengthening or...

  • IRBs.  // Applied Clinical Trials;Aug2011 Supplement, p68 

    The article lists several institutional review boards (IRBs) worldwide including Asian Clinical Trials, Queensland Clinical Trials Network (QCTN), and Independent Investigational Review Board.

  • Coast IRB uncovers apparent government 'sting' operation. PEDERSEN, AMANDA // Medical Device Daily;3/16/2009, Vol. 13 Issue 49, p1 

    The article reveals the claim of Coast Independent Review Board (IRB) concerning a fraudulent clinical trial submitted by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce agents. The Coast IRB claimed that evidence of the trial could form...

  • Protection of Human Subjects : A Primer for the New Administrator. Steinert, Bruce W. // Journal of Research Administration;2002, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p67 

    Few activities in research garner more public notoriety than using human research subjects. Protecting human subjects is not the traditional fare of research administrators, but a knowledgeable administrator can catch pitfalls missed by the uninformed investigator. This article discusses...

  • Ethical and scientific considerations for patient enrollment into concurrent clinical trials. Myles, Paul S.; Williamson, Elizabeth; Oakley, Justin; Forbes, Andrew // Trials;2014, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p2 

    Researchers and institutional review boards often consider it inappropriate for patients to be asked to consent to more than one study despite there being no regulatory prohibition on coenrollment in most countries. There are however ethical, safety, statistical, and practical considerations...

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