Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2025

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Outcomes of shared institutional review board compared with multiple individual site institutional review board
Samantha L Martin1, Phillip H Allman2, Lorraine Dugoff3
1Center for Women's Reproductive Health, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (Drs Martin, Szychowski, and Tita).
Background:
Institutional review boards play a crucial role in initiating clinical trials. Although many multicenter clinical trials use an individual institutional review board model, where each institution uses their local institutional review board, it is unknown if a shared (single institutional review board) model would reduce the time required to approve a standard institutional review board protocol.
Objective:
This study aimed to compare processing times and other processing characteristics between sites using a single institutional review board model and those using their individual site institutional review board model in a multicenter clinical trial.
Study Design:
This was a retrospective study of sites in an open-label, multicenter randomized control trial from 2014 to 2021. Participating sites in the multicenter Chronic Hypertension and Pregnancy trial were asked to complete a survey collecting data describing their institutional review board approval process.
Results:
A total of 45 sites participated in the survey (7 used a shared institutional review board model and 38 used their individual institutional review board model). Most sites (86%) using the shared institutional review board model did not require a full-board institutional review board meeting before protocol approval, compared with 1 site (3%) using the individual institutional review board model (P<.001). Median total approval times (41 vs 56 days; P=.42), numbers of submission rounds (1 vs 2; P=.09), and numbers of institutional review board stipulations (1 vs 4; P=.12) were lower for the group using the shared institutional review board model than those using the individual site institutional review board model; however, these differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusion:
The findings supported the hypothesis that the shared institutional review board model for multicenter studies may be more efficient in terms of cumulative time and effort required to obtain approval of an institutional review board protocol than the individual institutional review board model. Given that these data have important implications for multicenter clinical trials, future research should evaluate these findings using larger or multiple multicenter trials.
More Related Videos
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
10:38Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Bioequivalence: Overview
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...