IRB Review Times and User Satisfaction
To keep you up to date on how long it is taking the IRB to review various types of submissions, we update the table and graph below every quarter. The table displays the number of days (median and range) from date of submission until date of final determination (approval or rejection) for submissions that reached a final determination during the fourth quarter of 2017. Some types of review require that the submission be sent back and forth between the IRB and the investigator. So we also show the number of days that protocols spend in the IRB office versus in the investigator’s office.
In addition to these median data, here are the 75th percentile data. That is, how long did the IRB take to finalize the review of 75% of all submissions. For full-board, expedited, and exempt reviews, the 75th percentile review times were 40 days, 4.5 days, and 11 days respectively.
James Feldman, MD, IRB Chair
Glenn Markenson, MD, IRB Chair
David Kaufman, ScD, IRB Chair
Sanford Auerbach, MD, IRB Chair
John Ennever, MD, PhD, Director, Human Research Protection Program
Review Time for Submissions that Reached Final Determination During the Fourth Quarter of 2017
|Days in IRB office*||Days in
|Full-board||24||34 (5-380)||22 (5-61)||6 (0-324)|
|Expedited||35||3 (0-20)||3 (0-20)||0 (0-3)|
|Exempt||132||4 (0-87)||4 (0-87)||0 (0-0)|
* These columns show the median number of days (and range).
User Satisfaction July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017
When the IRB makes a determination on a new protocol (either approve, defer, or disapprove), we ask the principal investigator (PI) to complete a 6-question online user satisfaction survey. This brief survey allows a PI to comment on various aspects of the review of that specific protocol. In the table below, we have summarized the responses from the surveys that were completed between July 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017 (survey response n=148, 41%). A brief description of each question is shown in the left column. The numbers in parentheses are the responses from the previous time period (January-July 2017).
These scores are generally comparable to the previous time period. The INSPIR platform (question 6) remains our area of greatest concern. We continue to improve the INSPIR system to try to make it more user-friendly.
Thanks to all of you who cooperated by filling out this survey.
John Ennever, MD, PhD
Director, Human Research Protection Program
Thomas J. Moore, MD
Executive Director, Office of Human Research Affairs
|Description||Strongly Agree||Agree||Disagree||Strongly Disagree||Not Applicable|
|Q1 The primary role of the IRB is to protect the rights and safety of human subjects. In reviewing this protocol, the IRB was appropriately focused on this role.||86% (81%)||14% (18%)||0% (0%)||0% (0%)||0% (0%)|
|Q2 In reviewing this protocol, the IRB dealt with me professionally and respectfully.||62% (63%)||7% (8%)||0% (0%)||1% (0%)||30% (29%)|
|Q3 Given the details of this protocol, this review time was acceptable.||57% (69%)||32% (24%)||6% (3%)||3% (2%)||1% (2%)|
|Q4 For this protocol, the IRB focused on helping me overcome regulatory challenges rather than just pointing out regulations.||49% (45%)||10% (14%)||0% (0%)||0% (0%)||40% (41%)|
|Q5 The IRB often requests modifications or clarifications from investigators before they can approve a protocol. For this protocol, those requests were clear, and I understood what the IRB was asking me to do.||65% (64%)||24% (20%)||1% (2%)||0% (1%)||9% (13%)|
|Q6 For this protocol, I found the INSPIR software platform understandable and easy to use.||30% (34%)||56% (48%)||10% (15%)||3% (3%)||1% (1%)|
The numbers in parentheses represent the ratings from the January-June 2017 survey.