A Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Institutional Trials
Top Cited Papers
- 2 May 2002
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 346 (18) , 1405-1408
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200205023461814
Abstract
These are difficult times for the nation's system of protection for human subjects in research.110 On the basis of a series of reports, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that institutional review boards (IRBs) are now forced to “review too much, too quickly, with too little expertise,” and with inadequate resources.6 One consequence is that there is minimal, often perfunctory, review of ongoing research. In addition, IRB members have become disillusioned as a result of both public criticism concerning the perceived failures of the boards and the increasing amount of . . .Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- IRB ReformNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Improving Protection for Research SubjectsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002
- Medical Innovation and Institutional InterdependenceJAMA, 2002
- Examining IRBs: Are Review Boards Fulfilling Their Duties?JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2001
- Breaking the Camel's Back: Multicenter Clinical Trials and Local Institutional Review BoardsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- Institutional Review Boards: A Crisis in ConfidenceAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- The IRB Is Not a Data and Safety Monitoring BoardIRB: Ethics & Human Research, 2000
- Demystifying Central Review Boards: Current Options and Future Directions: A Summary Report of Outcomes from "Central IRB Review of Multi-Site Trials," 27-28 October 1998IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 2000
- IRBs search for answers and support during a time of institutional change.JAMA, 2000
- Selective Review of External Adverse Events: One IRB's Response to the Avalanche of IND Safety ReportsIRB: Ethics & Human Research, 1999