Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Mar 21;23(1):224.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06141-y.

Pediatric specific challenges of the single institutional review board mandate

Andrew Hu  1 , Jane L Holl  2 , Mehul V Raval  3
Affiliations

Pediatric specific challenges of the single institutional review board mandate

Andrew Hu et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Background: The Common Rule Revision (CRR) mandates a single institutional review board (IRB) for all US federally funded nonexempt multisite human participant research. While the CRR aims to improve research efficiency, its success in pediatric research remains uncertain MAIN BODY: There are multiple challenges that threaten the purported efficiency of the single IRB mandate. While the CRR is clear that ethical review is the purview of the single IRB, responsibility for issues of local study governance are less well defined. Therefore, reliance agreements (RA) must be negotiated between single IRBs and participating institutions. These negotiations can vary significantly based upon the institution's local context and are often arduous, lengthy, and burdensome. Furthermore, in pediatric research, issues such as assent, surrogate consent, and IRB risk determination add additional layers of complexity that must be considered. No clear system exists for resolving disagreements surrounding these critical human participant protection issues. Finally, the variation in institutional resources directed towards pediatric research may mean that only a select few pediatric institutions will be able to function in the single IRB system. These challenges will need to be overcome to successfully implement the CRR and achieve its objective of improving multisite research efficiency. We suggest that an empiric and collaborative approach utilizing implementation strategies is necessary for the CRR and single IRBs to be effective.

Conclusion: The CRR seeks to improve the efficiency of multisite human participant research in the US. There are multiple challenges that will need to be overcome. An empiric collaborative approach is necessary. If successful, single IRBs have the potential to usher in a new era of impactful and efficient multisite pediatric research.

Keywords: Common Rule Revision; Human participant research; Pediatric research; Single IRB.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects In: Services USDoHaH, editor. Fed. Reg. 2017. p. 7149-7274. - PubMed
    1. Menikoff J. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1591–1593. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1005101. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taylor HA, Ehrhardt S, Ervin AM. Public comments on the proposed common rule mandate for single-IRB review of multisite research. Ethics Hum Res. 2019;41(1):15–21. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lidz CW, Pivovarova E, Appelbaum P, Stiles DF, Murray A, Klitzman RL. Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: concerns of IRB members and staff. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018;9(3):164–172. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1510437. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klitzman R, Pivovarova E, Lidz CW. Single IRBs in multisite trials: questions posed by the new NIH policy. Jama. 2017;317(20):2061–2062. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4624. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources