↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Using Central IRBs for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Using Central IRBs for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0054999
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn E. Flynn, Cynthia L. Hahn, Judith M. Kramer, Devon K. Check, Carrie B. Dombeck, Soo Bang, Jane Perlmutter, Felix A. Khin-Maung-Gyi, Kevin P. Weinfurt

Abstract

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 Transformation Initiative (CTTI) supported this project to solicit current perceptions of barriers to the use of central IRBs and to formulate potential solutions. We held discussions with IRB experts, interviewed representatives of research institutions, and held an expert meeting with diverse stakeholder groups and thought leaders. We found that many perceived barriers relate to conflating responsibilities of the institution with the ethical review responsibilities of the IRB. We identified the need for concrete tools to help research institutions separate institutional responsibilities from ethical responsibilities required of the IRB. One such tool is a document we created that delineates these responsibilities and how they might be assigned to each entity, or, in some cases, both entities. This tool and project recommendations will be broadly disseminated to facilitate the use of central IRBs in multicenter trials. The ultimate goal is to increase the nation's capacity to efficiently conduct the large number of high-quality trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 10 34%