Working with Boards and Committees: ECs, DSMBs, CABs

  • Sana Loue
  • Earl C. Pike


Research Participant Ethic Review Committee Human Subject Research Community Advisory Board Data Safety Monitoring Board 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burman, W., Breese, P., Weis, S., Bock, N., Bernardo, J., Vernon, A., & Tuberculosis Trials Consortium. (2003). The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 245–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cho, S-Y. (2003). Stages of institutional review board activities. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 18, 1–2.Google Scholar
  3. Chokevivat, V. (1998). The current status of clinical trials in Thailand. Drug Information Journal, 32, 1235S-1241S.Google Scholar
  4. Chovnick, G. (2005). A plan for maintaining a successful community advisory board. Presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference, June 12–15, Atlanta, Georgia [abstract no. TP-104].Google Scholar
  5. Christakis, N.A. (1988). Should IRBs monitor researcher more strictly? IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 10(2), 8–10.Google Scholar
  6. Christian, M.C., Goldberg, J.L., Killen, J., Abrams, J.S., McCabe, M.S., Mauer, J.K., & Wittes, R.E. (2002). A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(18), 1405–1408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Code of Federal Regulations. (2006). Title 45, part 46.Google Scholar
  8. Council of Organizations for Medical Sciences. (2002). International Ethical Guidelines for the Conduct of Biomedical Research Involving Human Beings. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Organizations for Medical Sciences. (1991). International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, L.E., Rouff, J.R., Svendsen, K.H., Markowitz, M., & Abrams, D.I. (1998). Community advisory boards: Their role in AIDS clinical trials. Health & Social Work, 23, 290–297.Google Scholar
  11. Dziak, K., Anderson, R., Sevick, M.A., Weisman, C.A., Levine, D.W., & Scholle, S.H. (2005). Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Services Research, 40(1), 279–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernandez, C.V., Kodish, E., Taweel, S., Shurin, S., & Weijer, C. (2003). Disclosure of the right of research participants to receive research results: An analysis of consent forms in the Children’s Oncology Group, Cancer, 97(11), 2904–2909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gordon, V.M., Sugarman, J., & Kass, M. (1998). Toward a more comprehensive approach to protecting human subjects. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 20(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  14. Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. (2001). 782 A.2d 807.Google Scholar
  15. Gunsalus, C.K., Bruner, E.M., Burbules, N.C., Dash, L., Finkin, M., Goldberg, J.P., Greenough, W.T., Miller, G.A., & Pratt, M.G. (2006). Mission creep in the IRB world. Science, 312, 1441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillman, D.W. & Louis, T.A. (2003). DSMB case study: Decision making when a similar clinical trial is stopped early. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Humphreys, K., Trafton, J., & Wagner, T.H. (2003). The cost of institutional review board procedures in multicenter observational research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139(1), 77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Icenogle, D.L. & Dudek, W.H. (2003). IRBs, conflict and liability: Will we see IRBs in court? Or is it when? Clinical Medicine & Research, 1(1), 63–68.Google Scholar
  19. Israel, B.A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A., & Becker, A.B.. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimmel, A.J. (1991). Predictable biases in the ethical decision making of American psychologists. American Psychologist, 46, 786–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiskaddon, S.H. (2005). Balancing access to participation in research and protection from risks: Applying the principle of justice. Journal of Nutrition, 135, 929–932.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lo, B., Wolf, L.E., & Berkeley, A. (2000). Conflict of interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1616–1620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loue, S. & Méndez, N. (2005). A community-based participatory approach to the develop-ment of HIV prevention for severely mentally ill Latinas. Conference of the International Society for Urban Health, Toronto, Canada, October 26–28.Google Scholar
  24. MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D.S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R.P., Svotti, R., Blanchard, L., & Trotter II, R.T. (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1929–1938.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mammel, K.A., & Kaplan, D.W. (1995). Research consent by adolescent minors and institutional review boards. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17, 323–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mello, M.M., Studdert, D.M., & Brennan, T.A. (2003). The rise of litigation in human subjects research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 139, 40–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Melton, G.B., Levine, R.J., Koocher, G.P., Rosenthal, R., & Thompson, W.C. (1988). Community consultation in socially sensitive research: Lessons from clinical trials of treatments for AIDS. American Psychologist, 43, 573–581.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Montori, V.M., Devereaux, P.J., Adhikari, N.K.J. et al. (2005). Randomized trials stopped early for benefit. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294(17), 2203–2209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morin, S.F., Maiorana, A., Koester, K.A., Sheon, N.M., & Richards, T.A. (2003). Community consultation in HIV prevention research: A study of community advisory boards at 6 research sites. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 33, 513–520.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2005). Research Involving HIV/AIDS. NHRC Human Research Ethics Handbook. Australia: Author. Available at Last accessed January 27, 2006.Google Scholar
  31. National Institutes of Health. (2000). Further Guidance on a Data and Safety Monitoring for Phase I and Phase II Trials (Notice OD-00–038), June 5. Bethesda, Maryland: Author.Google Scholar
  32. National Institutes of Health. (1998). NOH Policy for Data and Safety Monitoring. Bethesda, Maryland: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Nerenz, D.R., Stoltz, P.K., & Jordan, J. (2003). Quality improvement and the need for IRB review. Quality Management in Health Care, 12(3), 159–170.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Odhiambo, F.O., Amornkul, P.N., Vandenhoudt, H. et al. (2004). Experiences of a rural community advisory board with HIV research in western Kenya. Presented at the International Conference on AIDS, July 11–16 [abstract no. ThPeC7578].Google Scholar
  35. Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health. (1998). Evaluation of NIH Implementation of Section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, Mandating a Program of Protection for Research Subjects. Bethesda, Maryland: Author.Google Scholar
  36. Paasche-Orlow, M.K., & Brancati, F.L. (2005). Assessment of medical school institutional review board policies regarding compensation of subjects for research-related injury. American Journal of Medicine, 118, 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Phillips, L. (1995). A seat at the table. Trustee, 48, 10–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Pich, J., Carné, X., Arnaiz, J-A., Gómez, B., Trilla, A., & Rodés, J. (2003). Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet, 361, 1015–1016.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price, E. & Lemons, A. (2003). Clinical trials: Protecting the subject, avoiding liability, and managing risk. Health Law Digest, 30(1). Google Scholar
  40. Randal, J. (2001). Examining IRBs: Are review boards fulfilling their duties? Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 93, 1440–1441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson v. McGee. (2001). No. 4:01CV60 (N.D. Okla., filed Jan. 29).Google Scholar
  42. Sansone, R.A., McDonald, S., Hanley, P., Selbom, M., & Gaither, G.A. (2004). The stipu-lations of one institutional review board: A five year review. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 308–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shilts, R. (1987). And the Band Played On: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  44. Silver, S., Brodeur, S., Cunningham, J. et al. (1996). Evolution of a participant-directed Women’s Interagency HIV Study community advisory board. Presented at the International Conference on AIDS, July 7–12. [abstract no. Tu.D.2763]. Available at Last accessed July 22, 2006.Google Scholar
  45. Singh, J.A. & Mills, E.J. (2005). The abandoned trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: What went wrong? PLoS Medicine, 2(9), e234:824-827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Siskind, R. (2004). Models for community input [slides]. Bethesda, Maryland: Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.Google Scholar
  47. Spiers, H.R. (1991a). Community consultation and AIDS clinical trials: Part I. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 13, 7–10.Google Scholar
  48. Spiers, H.R. (1991b). Community consultation and AIDS clinical trials: Part II. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 13, 1–6.Google Scholar
  49. Spiers, H.R. (1991c). Community consultation and AIDS clinical trials: Part III. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 13, 3–7.Google Scholar
  50. Strauss, R.P., Sengupta, S., Quinn, S.C., Goeppinger, J., Spaulding, C., Kegeles, S.M., & Millett, G. (2001). The role of community advisory boards: Involving communities in the informed consent process. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1938–1943.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. (1998). Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
  52. Vick, C.C., Finan, K.R., Kiefe, C., Neumayer, L., & Hawn, M.T. (2005). Variation in institu-tional review processes for a multisite observational study. American Journal of Surgery, 190, 805–809.ReferencesPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woodsong, C. & Karim, Q.A. (2005). A model designed to enhance informed consent: Experiences from the HIV Prevention Trials Network. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3), 412–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. World Health Organization. (2000). Operational Guidelines for Ethics Committees That Review Biomedical Research. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sana Loue
    • 1
  • Earl C. Pike
    • 2
  1. 1.Case Western Reserve UniversityCleveland
  2. 2.AIDS Taskforce of Greater ClevelandCleveland

Personalised recommendations