Latent variable modeling and its implications for institutional review board review: variables that delay the reviewing process

Abstract

BackgroundTo investigate the factors related to approval after review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), the structure equation model was used to analyze the latent variables ‘investigators’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘review process’ for 221 proposals submitted to our IRB.MethodsThe vulnerability factor included vulnerable cases, and studies that involved drug tests and genetic analyses. The principal investigator (PI) factor included the license level of the PI and whether they belonged to our institution. The review factor included administration time, total review time, and revision frequency. The revision frequency and total review time influenced the efficiency of review.ResultsThe latent variable of reviewing was the most important factor mediating the PIs and vulnerability to IRB review approval. The local PIs moderated with genetic study and revision frequency had an impact on the review process and mediated non-approval.ConclusionsBetter guidance of the investigators and reviewers might improve the efficiency with which IRBs function.

Effects of Regulatory Support Services on Institutional Review Board Turnaround Times

“…However, in our adjusted analyses, more intensive support was not associated with either investigator response times or IRB processing and review times in particular. Other research does indicate that many of the longest delays surrounding IRB approval may occur due to lengthy investigator response times (Hall et al, 2015; Tzeng, Wu, & Hsu, 2015). While we did find some indication of this in unadjusted analyses, our adjusted analyses may have been hampered by small sample sizes, or may suggest that other factors play more important roles in turnaround times.…”

Profile of Institutional Review Board Characteristics Prior to the 2019 Implementation of the Revised Common Rule

“…The authors concluded that the lengths of time required to review protocols at their IRB greatly exceeded the 60-day target recommended by expert panels, and they identified some potential sources of inefficiency for improvement. Tzeng, Wu, and Hsu (2015) concluded that factors that most often prolonged IRB approval at their institution concerned the frequent need for multiple rounds of revisions, the complexity of the protocol, and the inclusion of subjects with particularly high needs for protection.…”

The IRB structure and medical research reform

“…Additionally, it has been documented that there are no published articles on the effectiveness of the IRB structure, and no evidence on process or outcomes related to IRB structure and research [ 8 ]. In fact, recent analyses found various IRB boards often asked for different and competing revisions when presented with the exact same studies.…”