首页> 外文期刊>Clinical trials: journal of the Society for Clinical Trials >The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network-initiated clinical trials
【24h】

The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network-initiated clinical trials

机译:国家儿童健康与人类发展协同生殖医学网络启动临床试验中单一制度审查委员会审查效率

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background/aims: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Methods: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. Results: While time required for actual institutional review board submission's review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7-24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. Conclusion: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health's goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.
机译:背景/宗旨:通过机构审查委员会及时审查研究方案,导致临床试验的更快启动,这对于从长凳到床边的迅速翻译至关重要。该观察科学研究检测了单一机构审查委员会对在国家儿童健康和人类发展协同生殖医学网络研究所启动临床试验所需的时间和努力的影响。方法:来自同一六个主要临床网站的数据集合三个目前的临床试验和两个过去的临床试验,包括从机构审查委员会提交的时间批准,提交,同意表格长度,所需附件数量,其他法规要求,订单在中央或当地网站的审查以及个人参与网站上的文件中的语言。还包括两个过去临床试验的结果。结果:虽然实际机构审查委员会提交的审查所需的时间和初步批准的时间减少了多中心试验(从66.7-24.0天)的单一机构审查委员会(从66.7-24.0天),总时间增加(均为111.2或123.3天)。除了单一机构审查委员会批准外,所有机构还要求批准某些组件(通常同意语言和使用本地语言),这些组成部分大大变化。单一的机构审查委员会依靠当地机构增加或移除人员,利息冲突和活动审计。结论:单一制度审查委员会缩短时间较初次审查和审批议定书及知情同意,但随着整个过程的时间增加,因为个人机构保留了所需监管审查组成部分的监督。为了最能实现国家卫生研究所的提高效率,以提高多路临床研究的提高,与当地机构审查委员会更加协调是精简和加速多路临床研究的启动的关键。

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