Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers01:13

Bioequivalence studies: Biowaivers

371
In certain scenarios, in vitro dissolution tests can replace in vivo bioequivalence studies. This is particularly true when a drug product, though available in varying strengths, maintains proportional similarity in its active and inactive ingredients. In such cases, the need for in vivo bioequivalence studies for lower strength variants may be waived, provided dissolution tests and in vivo studies on the highest strength yield satisfactory results.Bioequivalence can be indicated through...
371
Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

26.1K
Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
26.1K
Blinding01:11

Blinding

4.0K
Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
4.0K
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients01:15

Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients

199
Bioavailability studies are essential for evaluating a drug's therapeutic efficacy and understanding its absorption patterns under various physiological conditions. Conducting such studies on target patient populations provides more relevant data by simulating real-world disease states. However, practical challenges often necessitate the use of young, healthy adult volunteers as study subjects.Patients may exhibit altered drug absorption patterns due to the effects of the disease itself,...
199
Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies01:11

Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies

312
Bioavailability studies are essential for understanding how a drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted in the body. These studies assess the extent and rate at which the active pharmaceutical agent becomes available at the site of action. The design of bioavailability studies can involve single-dose or multiple-dose regimens, each with distinct advantages and limitations.Single-dose studies are the preferred approach due to their simplicity and reduced drug exposure for...
312
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

13.8K
Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which...
13.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Transition of Care for Children with Complex Congenital Surgical Conditions as They Age into Adulthood.

Journal of pediatric surgery·2026
Same author

Zadeh-based fuzzy analysis of carreau tri-hybrid nanofluid hemodynamics in a straight artery with irregular triangular stenosis.

Computational biology and chemistry·2026
Same author

Longitudinal lipidomic markers of cardiac aging and risk of coronary heart disease in American Indians: the Strong Heart Family Study.

GeroScience·2026
Same author

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological Self-Management Interventions for Persistent Pain: Protocol for Single-Case Experimental Designs.

JMIR research protocols·2026
Same author

A synergistic framework for hemodynamics within eccentric vascular constrictions.

Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering·2026
Same author

Retraction Note: Mathematical analysis of isothermal study of reverse roll coating using Micropolar fluid.

Scientific reports·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 16, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
04:53

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

11.4K

Do N-of-1 Trials Need IRB Review?

Ruiqi Cen1, Azad Hussain1, Kirk J Pak2

  • 1Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics : JERHRE
|August 19, 2016
PubMed
Summary

Most institutional review boards (IRBs) do not consider N-of-1 trials as human subjects research requiring approval. This lack of policy hinders personalized medicine research, necessitating wider examination and guidance for N-of-1 studies.

Keywords:
IRB (institutional review board)biomedical researchhuman subjects researchresearch ethics

More Related Videos

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research
07:48

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research

Published on: November 26, 2015

10.4K
Novel Object Recognition and Object Location Behavioral Testing in Mice on a Budget
05:57

Novel Object Recognition and Object Location Behavioral Testing in Mice on a Budget

Published on: November 20, 2018

59.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 16, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
04:53

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

11.4K
Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research
07:48

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research

Published on: November 26, 2015

10.4K
Novel Object Recognition and Object Location Behavioral Testing in Mice on a Budget
05:57

Novel Object Recognition and Object Location Behavioral Testing in Mice on a Budget

Published on: November 20, 2018

59.6K

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics and Regulation
  • Clinical Trial Design
  • Personalized Medicine

Background:

  • N-of-1 trials are increasingly utilized for personalized medicine, but regulatory and institutional approval policies remain undefined in the United States.
  • The definition of human subjects research and the requirement for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for N-of-1 trials are not standardized.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP)-accredited IRBs in the U.S. classify N-of-1 trials as human subjects research.
  • To determine if AAHRPP-accredited IRBs consider N-of-1 trials as requiring IRB approval under federal regulations (45 CFR 46.102).

Main Methods:

  • A survey questionnaire was emailed to 170 AAHRPP-accredited IRBs across the United States.
  • Responses from participating IRBs were subjected to statistical and qualitative analysis to interpret their views on N-of-1 trials.

Main Results:

  • Out of 59 responding IRBs, only 19 (32%) considered N-of-1 trials as research.
  • Twelve IRBs reported having specific policies for N-of-1 trials; however, none of these policies defined N-of-1 trials as meeting the criteria for research requiring IRB approval.

Conclusions:

  • A significant gap exists in the regulatory and institutional policies concerning N-of-1 trials, with most IRBs not classifying them as human subjects research.
  • The findings underscore the need for broader discussion within the IRB community to develop clear policies and guidance for N-of-1 trials to support the advancement of precision medicine.