Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial

Brian T. Helfand, Anne K. Mongiu, Claus Roehrborn, Robert F. Donnell, Reginald Bruskewitz, Steven A. Kaplan, John W. Kusek, Laura Coombs, Kevin T. McVary

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The primary responsibility of institutional review boards is to protect human research subjects and, therefore, ensure that studies are performed in accordance with a standard set of ethical principles. A number of groups have compared the responses of institutional review boards in multicenter clinical trials involving medical therapies. To our knowledge no such studies have been performed to date of trials investigating surgical intervention. We investigated the consistency of the recommendations issued by various institutional review boards in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a multicenter trial with a uniform consent and study protocol. Materials and Methods: We obtained the institutional review board response from 6 of the 7 participating institutions after initial submission of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study protocol and classified the responses. We then redistributed the approved protocols to an institutional review board at another participating institution and analyzed that review of these protocols. Results: We found that the number and type of responses required for institutional review board approval of an identical study protocol varied significantly among participating institutions. We also found that institutional review board responses were inconsistent in the second review, although all protocols were ultimately approved. Conclusions: The current system of local institutional review board review in the context of a multicenter surgical trial is inefficient in the review process and may not provide expertise for overseeing surgical trials. Based on these results a central surgical institutional review board may be needed to improve the ethical review process in multicenter trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2674-2679
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume181
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2009

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Randomized Controlled Trials
Multicenter Studies
Ethical Review
Research Subjects
Prostatic Hyperplasia
Therapeutics
Clinical Trials

Keywords

  • ethics committees
  • minimally invasive
  • prostate
  • randomized controlled trials as topic
  • research
  • research subjects
  • surgical procedures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial. / Helfand, Brian T.; Mongiu, Anne K.; Roehrborn, Claus; Donnell, Robert F.; Bruskewitz, Reginald; Kaplan, Steven A.; Kusek, John W.; Coombs, Laura; McVary, Kevin T.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 181, No. 6, 06.2009, p. 2674-2679.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Helfand, BT, Mongiu, AK, Roehrborn, C, Donnell, RF, Bruskewitz, R, Kaplan, SA, Kusek, JW, Coombs, L & McVary, KT 2009, 'Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial', Journal of Urology, vol. 181, no. 6, pp. 2674-2679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032
Helfand, Brian T. ; Mongiu, Anne K. ; Roehrborn, Claus ; Donnell, Robert F. ; Bruskewitz, Reginald ; Kaplan, Steven A. ; Kusek, John W. ; Coombs, Laura ; McVary, Kevin T. / Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial. In: Journal of Urology. 2009 ; Vol. 181, No. 6. pp. 2674-2679.
@article{bb7fba6eee024108b92bbd1f642849fa,
title = "Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial",
abstract = "Purpose: The primary responsibility of institutional review boards is to protect human research subjects and, therefore, ensure that studies are performed in accordance with a standard set of ethical principles. A number of groups have compared the responses of institutional review boards in multicenter clinical trials involving medical therapies. To our knowledge no such studies have been performed to date of trials investigating surgical intervention. We investigated the consistency of the recommendations issued by various institutional review boards in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a multicenter trial with a uniform consent and study protocol. Materials and Methods: We obtained the institutional review board response from 6 of the 7 participating institutions after initial submission of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study protocol and classified the responses. We then redistributed the approved protocols to an institutional review board at another participating institution and analyzed that review of these protocols. Results: We found that the number and type of responses required for institutional review board approval of an identical study protocol varied significantly among participating institutions. We also found that institutional review board responses were inconsistent in the second review, although all protocols were ultimately approved. Conclusions: The current system of local institutional review board review in the context of a multicenter surgical trial is inefficient in the review process and may not provide expertise for overseeing surgical trials. Based on these results a central surgical institutional review board may be needed to improve the ethical review process in multicenter trials.",
keywords = "ethics committees, minimally invasive, prostate, randomized controlled trials as topic, research, research subjects, surgical procedures",
author = "Helfand, {Brian T.} and Mongiu, {Anne K.} and Claus Roehrborn and Donnell, {Robert F.} and Reginald Bruskewitz and Kaplan, {Steven A.} and Kusek, {John W.} and Laura Coombs and McVary, {Kevin T.}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "181",
pages = "2674--2679",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial

AU - Helfand, Brian T.

AU - Mongiu, Anne K.

AU - Roehrborn, Claus

AU - Donnell, Robert F.

AU - Bruskewitz, Reginald

AU - Kaplan, Steven A.

AU - Kusek, John W.

AU - Coombs, Laura

AU - McVary, Kevin T.

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - Purpose: The primary responsibility of institutional review boards is to protect human research subjects and, therefore, ensure that studies are performed in accordance with a standard set of ethical principles. A number of groups have compared the responses of institutional review boards in multicenter clinical trials involving medical therapies. To our knowledge no such studies have been performed to date of trials investigating surgical intervention. We investigated the consistency of the recommendations issued by various institutional review boards in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a multicenter trial with a uniform consent and study protocol. Materials and Methods: We obtained the institutional review board response from 6 of the 7 participating institutions after initial submission of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study protocol and classified the responses. We then redistributed the approved protocols to an institutional review board at another participating institution and analyzed that review of these protocols. Results: We found that the number and type of responses required for institutional review board approval of an identical study protocol varied significantly among participating institutions. We also found that institutional review board responses were inconsistent in the second review, although all protocols were ultimately approved. Conclusions: The current system of local institutional review board review in the context of a multicenter surgical trial is inefficient in the review process and may not provide expertise for overseeing surgical trials. Based on these results a central surgical institutional review board may be needed to improve the ethical review process in multicenter trials.

AB - Purpose: The primary responsibility of institutional review boards is to protect human research subjects and, therefore, ensure that studies are performed in accordance with a standard set of ethical principles. A number of groups have compared the responses of institutional review boards in multicenter clinical trials involving medical therapies. To our knowledge no such studies have been performed to date of trials investigating surgical intervention. We investigated the consistency of the recommendations issued by various institutional review boards in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study for benign prostatic hyperplasia, a multicenter trial with a uniform consent and study protocol. Materials and Methods: We obtained the institutional review board response from 6 of the 7 participating institutions after initial submission of the Minimally Invasive Surgical Therapies study protocol and classified the responses. We then redistributed the approved protocols to an institutional review board at another participating institution and analyzed that review of these protocols. Results: We found that the number and type of responses required for institutional review board approval of an identical study protocol varied significantly among participating institutions. We also found that institutional review board responses were inconsistent in the second review, although all protocols were ultimately approved. Conclusions: The current system of local institutional review board review in the context of a multicenter surgical trial is inefficient in the review process and may not provide expertise for overseeing surgical trials. Based on these results a central surgical institutional review board may be needed to improve the ethical review process in multicenter trials.

KW - ethics committees

KW - minimally invasive

KW - prostate

KW - randomized controlled trials as topic

KW - research

KW - research subjects

KW - surgical procedures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67349264564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67349264564&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032

M3 - Article

C2 - 19375101

AN - SCOPUS:67349264564

VL - 181

SP - 2674

EP - 2679

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 6

ER -