Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Bioeth. 2014 May;14(5):3–8. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.892168

Table 1.

Continuum of IRB Collaborative Mechanisms

Mechanisms Characteristics of Mechanism Examples
Independent Reviews
  • ▪ Each IRB conducts own review

  • ▪ Investigator generally serves as the primary contact point for all IRB communications

Shared Information
Systems
  • ▪ Standardized application forms (e.g. a single application that can be submitted to multiple IRBs)

  • ▪ Shared access to review documents

  • ▪ Shared electronic submission systems

Open Communication
  • ▪ Communication across IRBs (staff)

  • ▪ Communication across IRB members

  • ▪ Designated contacts for questions across IRBs

Availability of Consultants
for Review
  • ▪ Designated consultants to fill knowledge gaps (e.g. scientific, regulatory, experience with the local setting, etc).

Division of
Roles/Facilitated Review
  • ▪ IRBs divide review tasks and inform each others’ reviews

  • ▪ Timing and order of IRB reviews is specified

  • ▪ The review of another IRB may be used to inform subsequent reviews

  • ▪ The primary review is done by one IRB,a preserving an opportunity for input from the local IRB before the review is finalized

  • ▪ In the limit, IRBs may fully rely on the judgments of another (e.g., IRB of record)

Joint Review/Combined
IRB
  • ▪ Members of multiple IRBs form a joint review committee

  • ▪ Regional IRBs are formed, comprised of members from multiple IRBs

  • ▪ University of Minnesota Collaborative IRB (Vegoe 2012);

  • ▪ Michigan State University Community Research IRB (McNeil 2007);

  • ▪ Dartmouth-MUHAS Joint IRB(AITRP 2012);

  • ▪ Indiana University-Moi University Joint IRB (RePORT 2012b);

  • ▪ Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY 2012);

  • ▪ Regional Ethics Committees (Wood et al. 2004).