Table 2.

Characteristics of institutions that use and don’t use outside experts (N = 552)^*.

	IRBs that Use Outside Experts (n = 306)		IRBs that Do Not Use Outside Experts (n = 246)
Respondent’s Institution Type**	n	%	n	%
University/College Setting	164	30%	123	22.3%
Hospital/Medical Setting	68	12.3%	35	6.3%
Other (e.g. Commercial IRB, Federal Agency, Research Center, Public Institution)	55	10%	55	10%
Nonprofit/NGO/Foundation	12	2.2%	27	5%
Total Active Human Subjects Research Projects Within IRB/HRPP’s portfolio***	n	%	n	%
0–500	189	34.2%	204	37%
500+	82	14.9%	14	2.5%
Don’t know	26	4.7%	7	1.3%
Type of Research Predominantly Reviewed at Institution	n	%	n	%
Social/behavioral/educational	166	30.1%	157	28.4%
Biomedical/clinical	76	14%	38	6.9%
Both equally	57	10.3%	31	5.6%
Institution has standard operating procedures (SOPs) that describe IRB/HRPP’s process for requesting outside expert/consultant review	n	%	n	%
Do Not Have SOPs	142	25.7%	144	26.1%
Do Have SOPs	106	19.2%	54	9.8%

^*Response to the required question “Does the IRB (or IRBs, if multiple panels exist) at your institution use outside experts or consultants to assist with IRB review?” Percentages may not add up to 100% due to missing data.

^**Categories for this question were sourced from the PRIM&R Workload and Salary Survey. Respondents were asked to select the category most representative of their institution and we consolidated into the four categories shown here.

^***“Active” is defined as any nonexempt project initially approved or reapproved under continuing review in the last 12 months. Respondents were asked to estimate.