The silent majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings

IRB: Ethics & Human Research 34 (4):15-20 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Institutional review boards are almost universally considered to be overworked and understaffed. They also require substantial commitments of time and resources from their members. Although some surveys report average IRB memberships of 15 people or more, federal regulations require only five. We present data on IRB meetings at eight of the top 25 academic medical centers in the United States funded by the National Institutes of Health. These data indicate substantial contributions from primary reviewers and chairs during protocol discussions but little from other members, which implies that it may be possible for smaller IRBs to accomplish the same tasks with no reduction in the quality of review

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,757

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

OPRR and FDA propose revised expedited review categories.Helen McGough - 1997 - IRB: Ethics & Human Research 20 (1):9-11.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-30

Downloads
80 (#263,395)

6 months
17 (#178,148)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Arnold
Nicolaus Copernicus University

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references