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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shoenbill, Kimberly, Song, Yiqiang, Cobb, Nichelle L., Drezner, Marc K., Mendonca, Eneida A.
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