Skip to main content

All Access Subscription

Get unlimited access to our full publication and article library.

Get Access Now

Interested in Group Sales? Learn more

Logo IRB

IRB Advisor – March 1, 2020

March 1, 2020

View Archives Issues

  • New Tech Research Raises Ethical Challenges for IRBs and Investigators

    Some new technology companies that are developing novel human subjects research face challenges and design issues that have never been explored. Companies engaging in cutting-edge technological services and solutions can raise public concerns for what they do on the business side, but there is less public awareness of privately funded research.

  • IRBs Can Work on Ground Floor With Start-Up Technology Firms

    New companies using cutting-edge technology can enter the research arena, but they might lack resources and a knowledge base that academic research organizations take for granted. IRBs can help companies fill some of those knowledge and experience gaps by forming a collaborative relationship and working with them from the beginning of the study design process.

  • IRB Devises Efficient, Time-Saving Annual Review Process

    Continuing review might have gone away for many studies, but a research protection program’s responsibilities have not. This is why many IRBs have devised an alternative annual review process that combines workflow efficiency with enhanced research protection. One model for this regular review is an annual status report. Minimum risk, expedited review, and some additional studies do not need to go through the annual continuing review by the IRB, but they can be monitored through this review.

  • Consent Calendar for Continuing Reviews Can Save IRB Meeting Time

    The consent calendar is a century-old tool, but it can work well in saving time during IRB meetings. Typically, IRBs review each study up for continuing review, discussing and voting for each, separately. But that might not be the most efficient way to handle these on the board meeting agenda.

  • Protocol Activation Model Leads to Reduction in Time-to-IRB Approval

    A large cancer research institution in New York City overhauled its protocol review process, devised a library of scientific terms commonly used in consent forms, and invested in more staff. Within a couple of years, the updated process resulted in a striking reduction in the median time for protocol and consent review by the IRB. Time-to-IRB approval decreased from 135 days in 2017 to 80 days in 2018.

  • Consent Library Is Consistent With Quick Access to Better Wording

    Dedicated editors help a research program manage an informed consent library of terms that can be included in consent forms as a substitute for medical/scientific language.