Scientific and Ethical Issues with an Institutional Review Board (IRB)’s Clinical Research Protocols in the IRB Review in a Teaching Hospital in South Korea
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
With the increased number of clinical trials being conducted in South Korea, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have acquired greater significance. In human clinical trials, unscientific studies may be unethical in light of their potential for causing harm to participants. Therefore, IRBs should review both the scientific and the ethical issues of any research protocol. However, research into the IRB review process is lacking in Korea. This study examined the protocols for clinical trials under the review of the IRB at Seoul National University Hospital. In total 1,244 protocols (752 between 2004 and 2006; 492 in 2013) were analyzed. Of these 22.7% were approved, 64.2% underwent minor revision, and 12.6% underwent major revision. In total, 62.2% of these protocols raised scientific issues, and 47.0% raised ethical issues. Among the scientific issues, “unclear sample size calculation” occurred most frequently. “Subjects’ recruitment/inclusion criteria” was the most frequently cited ethical issue. A total of 67.0% had consent issues and 41.3% raised questions about the case report form. Compared to the period from 2004 to 2006, the prevalence of protocols with “unclear study design” and those that raised questions about “privacy/personal data” increased in 2013. While scientific issues were the most frequent among investigator-initiated trials, consent issues were the most frequent in sponsor-initiated trials. Although all issues were significantly associated with the approval decision, the approval rate of studies with ethical issues was lowest. These results provide a basis for the development of guidelines for researchers by identifying common issues in clinical protocols
Abstract
With the increased number of clinical trials being conducted in South Korea, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have acquired greater significance. In human clinical trials, unscientific studies may be unethical in light of their potential for causing harm to participants. Therefore, IRBs should review both the scientific and the ethical issues of any research protocol. However, research into the IRB review process is lacking in Korea. This study examined the protocols for clinical trials under the review of the IRB at Seoul National University Hospital. In total 1,244 protocols (752 between 2004 and 2006; 492 in 2013) were analyzed. Of these 22.7% were approved, 64.2% underwent minor revision, and 12.6% underwent major revision. In total, 62.2% of these protocols raised scientific issues, and 47.0% raised ethical issues. Among the scientific issues, “unclear sample size calculation” occurred most frequently. “Subjects’ recruitment/inclusion criteria” was the most frequently cited ethical issue. A total of 67.0% had consent issues and 41.3% raised questions about the case report form. Compared to the period from 2004 to 2006, the prevalence of protocols with “unclear study design” and those that raised questions about “privacy/personal data” increased in 2013. While scientific issues were the most frequent among investigator-initiated trials, consent issues were the most frequent in sponsor-initiated trials. Although all issues were significantly associated with the approval decision, the approval rate of studies with ethical issues was lowest. These results provide a basis for the development of guidelines for researchers by identifying common issues in clinical protocols
참고문헌 (19)
- Im H, "IRB review process", Korean J Clin Oncol, 5, pp.72~81 (2011)
- 안영미, "인간대상 연구윤리와 IRB", 한국아동간호학회 학술대회 자료집, 6, pp.73~91 (2014)
- 홍정화, "IRB 심사 통과를 위한 효율적인 연구계획서 작성법", 대한외과학회 학술대회 초록집, 11, pp.45~154 (2012)
- Abbott L, "A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn", J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 6(1), pp.3~19 (2011)
- Dyrbye LN, "Medical education research and IRB review:an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions", Acad Med, 82(7), pp.654~660 (2007)
- Khan MA, "Variability of the institutional review board process within a national research network", Clin Pediatr, 53(6), pp.556~560 (2014)
- Kano M, "Costs and inconsistencies in US IRB review of low-risk medical education research", Med Educ, 49(6), pp.634~637 (2015)
- Polito CC, "Navigating the institutional review board approval process in a multicenter observational critical care study", Crit Care Med, 42(5), pp.1105~1109 (2014)
- Grodin MA, "A 12-year audit of IRB decisions", QRB Qual Rev Bull, 12(3), pp.82~86 (1986)
- Jones JS, "Structure and practice of institutional review boards in the United States", Acad Emerg Med, 3(8), pp.804~809 (1996)
- Rodriguez SP, "Factors related to the approval, development and publication of research protocols in a paediatric hospital", Arch Argent Pediatr, 107(6), pp.504~509 (2009)
- Wao H, "Uncertainty about effects is a key factor influencing institutional review boards' approval of clinical studies", Ann Epidemiol, 24(10), pp.734~740 (2014)
- "Korean Good Clinical Practice" (1995)[URL]
- Pritchard I., "How do IRB members make decision? A review and research agenda", J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics, 6(2), pp.31~46 (2011)
- "The Trend of Clinical Trial Approval in 2014" (2015)[URL]
- Dominguez RA, "Searching for an efficient institutional review board review model: interrelationship of trainee-investigators, funding, and initial approval", J Lab Clin Med, 145(2), pp.65~71 (2005)
- Kim B., "The study to find the operation statuses and improvement points of IRB in Korea", Bioeth Policy Res, 2(3), pp.291~302 (2008)
- De Vries RG, "What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive?", Account Res, 9(3), pp.199~216 (2002)
- Sengupta S, "The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards", Acad Med, 78(2), pp.212~218 (2003)