Cargando…
IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis
OBJECTIVE: Clinical research involving humans is critically important, but it is a lengthy and expensive process. Most studies require institutional review board (IRB) approval. Our objective is to identify predictors of delays or accelerations in the IRB review process and apply this knowledge to i...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647673/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29082031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.25 |
_version_ | 1783272284900818944 |
---|---|
author | Shoenbill, Kimberly Song, Yiqiang Cobb, Nichelle L. Drezner, Marc K. Mendonca, Eneida A. |
author_facet | Shoenbill, Kimberly Song, Yiqiang Cobb, Nichelle L. Drezner, Marc K. Mendonca, Eneida A. |
author_sort | Shoenbill, Kimberly |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Clinical research involving humans is critically important, but it is a lengthy and expensive process. Most studies require institutional review board (IRB) approval. Our objective is to identify predictors of delays or accelerations in the IRB review process and apply this knowledge to inform process change in an effort to improve IRB efficiency, transparency, consistency and communication. METHODS: We analyzed timelines of protocol submissions to determine protocol or IRB characteristics associated with different processing times. Our evaluation included single variable analysis to identify significant predictors of IRB processing time and machine learning methods to predict processing times through the IRB review system. Based on initial identified predictors, changes to IRB workflow and staffing procedures were instituted and we repeated our analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis identified several predictors of delays in the IRB review process including type of IRB review to be conducted, whether a protocol falls under Veteran’s Administration purview and specific staff in charge of a protocol's review. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified several predictors of delays in IRB protocol review processing times using statistical and machine learning methods. Application of this knowledge to process improvement efforts in two IRBs has led to increased efficiency in protocol review. The workflow and system enhancements that are being made support our four-part goal of improving IRB efficiency, consistency, transparency, and communication. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5647673 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56476732017-10-27 IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis Shoenbill, Kimberly Song, Yiqiang Cobb, Nichelle L. Drezner, Marc K. Mendonca, Eneida A. J Clin Transl Sci Translational Research, Design and Analysis OBJECTIVE: Clinical research involving humans is critically important, but it is a lengthy and expensive process. Most studies require institutional review board (IRB) approval. Our objective is to identify predictors of delays or accelerations in the IRB review process and apply this knowledge to inform process change in an effort to improve IRB efficiency, transparency, consistency and communication. METHODS: We analyzed timelines of protocol submissions to determine protocol or IRB characteristics associated with different processing times. Our evaluation included single variable analysis to identify significant predictors of IRB processing time and machine learning methods to predict processing times through the IRB review system. Based on initial identified predictors, changes to IRB workflow and staffing procedures were instituted and we repeated our analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis identified several predictors of delays in the IRB review process including type of IRB review to be conducted, whether a protocol falls under Veteran’s Administration purview and specific staff in charge of a protocol's review. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified several predictors of delays in IRB protocol review processing times using statistical and machine learning methods. Application of this knowledge to process improvement efforts in two IRBs has led to increased efficiency in protocol review. The workflow and system enhancements that are being made support our four-part goal of improving IRB efficiency, consistency, transparency, and communication. Cambridge University Press 2017-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5647673/ /pubmed/29082031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.25 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. |
spellingShingle | Translational Research, Design and Analysis Shoenbill, Kimberly Song, Yiqiang Cobb, Nichelle L. Drezner, Marc K. Mendonca, Eneida A. IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis |
title | IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis |
title_full | IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis |
title_fullStr | IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis |
title_short | IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis |
title_sort | irb process improvements: a machine learning analysis |
topic | Translational Research, Design and Analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5647673/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29082031 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.25 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shoenbillkimberly irbprocessimprovementsamachinelearninganalysis AT songyiqiang irbprocessimprovementsamachinelearninganalysis AT cobbnichellel irbprocessimprovementsamachinelearninganalysis AT dreznermarck irbprocessimprovementsamachinelearninganalysis AT mendoncaeneidaa irbprocessimprovementsamachinelearninganalysis |