...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Ethics >How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study
【24h】

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

机译:66欧洲机构审查委员会如何批准一个关于创伤性脑损伤的国际潜在观察研究的一份议定书?中心TBI研究的经验

获取原文

摘要

The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N?=?11, 61%) or locally (N?=?7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N?=?8, 44%), two (N?=?6, 33%) or three (N?=?4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98?days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could?increase duration to 535?days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114?days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138?days, p?=?0.0074). We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
机译:欧盟(欧盟)旨在通过协调会员国的程序来优化患者保护和效率。尽管如此,需要进一步改进来增加多中心的研究效率。我们调查了在一个关于创伤性脑损伤(TBI)的大型未来欧洲多中心研究中的IRB程序,旨在为提高效率提供信息和刺激措施。我们审查有关IRB提交和IRB批准的相关文件,从欧洲神经统计中心参与创伤性脑损伤(Centre-TBI)的协同欧洲神经统治效果研究。文件包括有关IRB程序的详细信息以及IRB提交的持续时间,直至批准。他们被翻译和分析确定欧洲IRB程序的协调水平。从18个国家,66个中心提供所要求的文件。初级IRB审查中央进行(n?= 11,61%)或局部(n?=Δ7,39%)和初级IRB批准在一个(n?= 8,44%)之后获得( n?=?6,33%)或三(n?=?4,23%)回顾分别为50和98的中位持续时间,直到初级IRB批准。 55%的国家均需要额外的IRB批准吗?可以提高535岁至535天。从提交到所需IRB批准的总时间为114?天(IQR 75-224),与中央IRB相比,在提交给当地IRB后似乎更短(50对138?天,P?= 0.0074)。我们发现欧洲国家之间的IRB程序的变化。提交和批准要求的差异,审查数量和总持续时间。研究合作可以从实施更统一的立法和规定的实施,同时承认国家之间的当地文化习惯和道德价值。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号