The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine
Volume 145, Issue 2 , Pages 65-71, February 2005

Searching for an efficient institutional review board review model: Interrelationship of trainee-investigators, funding, and initial approval

  • Roberto A. Dominguez

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Norman H. Altman, VMD, Vice Provost for Research, University of Miami, Office of Research, Sewell Building (R-64), PO Box 016960, Miami, FL 33101.
  • ,
  • Daniel J. Feaster

      Affiliations

    • Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
  • ,
  • Leo B. Twiggs

      Affiliations

    • Human Subjects Research Office, and the Office of Research, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.
  • ,
  • Norman H. Altman

      Affiliations

    • Human Subjects Research Office, and the Office of Research, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA.

Received 18 August 2004; received in revised form 29 November 2004

In this study we sought to identify variables associated with institutional review board (IRB) decisions to develop an efficient “pre-IRB” review model. We explored several variables, including relationships among the identification of trainees as investigators, external sources of funding, and initial approval. The sample consisted of all new submissions reviewed by the 2 medical IRBs at the University of Miami (UM) during a 1-year period. Trainees included students, residents, and fellows. At least 1 trainee had to be identified for a proposal to be considered a trainee submission. The medical-science committees (MSCs) were similar with regard to the numbers of new submissions they reviewed during convened meetings (MSC-A 242, MSC-B 241) and the percentages of proposals that were initially approved (MSC-A 52.9%, MSC-B 53.1%). Approved submissions were defined as those initially approved or conditionally approved pending minor modifications. We noted a robust statistical difference between the percentages of trainee submissions initially approved (39.9%) and submissions that did not identify a trainee (59.4%) (P<.0001). Of the proposals that were initially not approved (tabled [deferred] or rejected [not approved]), 28.9% of those including a trainee were rejected, compared with 11.0% without a trainee (P<.001). Proposals in which the source of funding was identified were more likely to be approved (64.2%) than were those in which it was not (30.8%) (P<.0001). Funding also seemed to influence the trainee and initial-approval interaction. Our results show that new submissions that identified trainee investigators were more likely to be deferred or not approved than those that did not. Nonapproved proposals that identified a trainee were 3.8 times more likely to be initially rejected than those that did not. A prereview model could target those submissions that list a trainee, lack funding, or both.

Abbreviations:  IRB, institutional review board , MSC, medical-science committee , OR, odds ratio , UM, University of Miami

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supported in part by National Institutes of Health grant award S07-RR-018143 and by National Institutes of Drug Abuse Cooperative Agreement U10-DA-13720.

PII: S0022-2143(04)00349-X

doi:10.1016/j.lab.2004.11.017

The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine
Volume 145, Issue 2 , Pages 65-71, February 2005