- Open Access
The IRB structure and medical research reform
© The Author(s) 2018
- Received: 7 February 2018
- Accepted: 12 February 2018
- Published: 2 April 2018
Optimal Independent Review Board (IRB) structure encompasses ongoing process improvement, ethics policies and continuous relationship building, all sound in evidence. With optimal IRB structure, a global research infrastructure will flourish. Evidence for IRB structure must be detailed and expert operational recommendations should guide. Too, health service research oversight should assist in funding as well as collaboration. A national and international research agenda will only benefit from best operations, guided in evidence, supported in best regulatory and research leadership practice. It is imperative that the IRB structure be reformed.
The author is the sole author of this manuscript. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
The author declares no competing interests.
Availability of data and materials
There is no original data to aggregate or report.
Consent for publication
The author consents to publication of this article.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
There are no funding contributions to declare.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
- World Health Organization Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. 2016Google Scholar
- WMA Declaration of Helsinki-World Health Organization. World Health Organisation; 2001Google Scholar
- Dominguez RA, Feaster DJ, Twiggs LB, Altman NH (2005) Searching for an efficient institutional review board review model: Interrelationship of trainee-investigators, funding, and initial approval. J Lab Clin Med 145(2):65–71View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Varley PR et al (2016) Time required to review research protocols at 10 Veterans Affairs Institutional Review Boards. J Surg Res 204(2):481–489View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- CTTI. CTTI recommendations: use of central IRBS for multicenter clinical trials. 2013Google Scholar
- Pogorzelska M, Stone PW, Cohn EG, Larson E (2010) Changes in the institutional review board submission process for multicenter research over 6 years. Nurs Outlook 58(4):181–187View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Bian J et al (2014) CLARA: an integrated clinical research administration system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 21(e2):e369–e373View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tzeng D-S, Wu Y-C, Hsu J-Y (2015) Latent variable modeling and its implications for institutional review board review: variables that delay the reviewing process. BMC Med Ethics 16:57View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Silberman G, Kahn KL (2011) Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q 89(4):599–627View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar