IRB Review Times and User Satisfaction
For information on how long it is taking the IRB to review various types of submissions, the table and graph below are updated every quarter. The table displays the number of days (median and range) from date of submission until date of final determination (approval or disapproval) for submissions that reached a final determination during the second quarter of 2026. Since some review processes require that the submission be sent back and forth between the IRB and the investigator, the number of days that submissions spend in the IRB office and the number of days that submissions spend in the investigator’s office are also presented.
James Feldman, MD, IRB Chair
Eric Devine, PhD, IRB Chair
Jamie Merrill, MPH, CIP, IRB Director
Review Times for Submissions that Reached Final Determination During the Second Quarter of 2026
| Number of reviews | Median days (range) from submission until final determination |
Median days (range) in IRB office | Median days (range) in investigator’s office |
|
| New Submissions | ||||
| Full-board | 11 | 7 (0-61) | 7 (0-39) | 0 (0-22) |
| Expedited | 27 | 3 (0-23) | 3 (0-23) | 0 (0-0) |
| Exempt | 127 | 5 (0-28) | 5 (0-28) | 0 (0-0) |
The 75th percentile data, which is how long the IRB takes to finalize the review of 75% of all submissions by type of review are also calculated for each quarter. For the second quarter of 2026 the results are: 17 days for full-board, 7 days for expedited, and 9 days for exempt reviews.
User Satisfaction January 1 through June 30, 2026
When a new study submission receives an IRB determination, we ask the principal investigator to complete a brief six-question survey about the review of that specific protocol. The table below summarizes the surveys completed between January 1 and June 30, 2026. We received responses covering 92 unique protocols during this period. The numbers in parentheses are from the prior period, July 1 through December 31, 2025.
These scores are broadly consistent with the prior period. INSPIR usability, reflected in question 6, remains our area of greatest concern, and we are continuing to work on both the platform and the guidance around it.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond.
Jamie Merrill, MPH, CIP
IRB Director
| Description | Strongly Agree | Agree | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
| 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. |
88% (89%) | 10% (8%) | 1% (3%) | 1% (0%) |
| Q2 In reviewing this protocol, the IRB dealt with me professionally and respectfully. |
92% (92%) | 8% (8%) | 0% (0%) | 0% (0%) |
| Q3 Given the details of this protocol, this review time was acceptable. | 74% (66%) | 17% (27%) | 8% (4%) | 1% (3%) |
| Q4 For this protocol, the IRB focused on helping me overcome regulatory challenges rather than just pointing out regulations. | 84% (86%) | 11% (12%) | 5% (3%) | 0% (0%) |
| 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. |
79% (75%) | 13% (22%) | 8% (3%) | 0% (0%) |
| Q6 For this protocol, I found the INSPIR software platform understandable and easy to use. | 38% (41%) | 43% (40%) | 14% (16%) | 4% (4%) |
The numbers in parentheses represent the ratings from the July-December 2025 survey.