Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Practice-Based Research Network Infrastructure Design for Institutional Review Board Risk Assessment and Generalizability of Clinical Results

  • Clinical Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data from clinical studies generated by practice-based research networks (PBRNs) should be generalizable to the health care profession. For nationally representative data, a broad recruitment of practitioners may pose added risks to institutional review boards (IRBs). Infrastructure must assure data integrity while minimizing risk to assure that the clinical results are widely accepted across medical disciplines. The PEARL Network is an interdisciplinary dental/medical PBRN conducting a broad range of clinical studies. The infrastructure is designed to support the principles of good clinical practice (GCP) and create a data audit trail to ensure data integrity for generalizability. As the PBRN concept becomes of greater interest, membership may expand beyond the local community, and the issue of geography versus risk management becomes of concern to the IRB. The PEARL Network describes how it resolves many of the issues related to recruiting on a national basis while maintaining study compliance to ensure patient safety and minimize risk to the IRB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. H.R.1 2009. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ5/content-detail.html. Accessed July 11, 2011.

  2. Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/content-detail.html. Accessed July 11, 2011.

  3. Curro FA, Vena D, Naftolin F, Terracio L, Thompson VP. The PBRN initiative: transforming new technologies to improve patient care. J Dent Res. 2012;91(suppl): S12–S20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. US Department of Health and Human Services. Protections of human subjects. 56 Fed Regis. 28012, 45 Code of Federal Regulations 46.

  5. Wolf LE, Walden JF, Lo B. Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research. Ann Fam Med. 2005;13(suppl 1): S30–S37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nutting P, Beasley J, Werner J. Practice-based research networks answer primary care questions. JAMA. 1999;281:686–689.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. White LK, Williams TF, Greenberg BG. The ecology of medical care. NEJM. 1961;265;885–892.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Green LA, Fryer GE, Yawn BP, Lanier D, Dovey SM. The ecology of medical care revisited. NEJM. 2001;344:2021–2025.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gunsalus ECK, Bruner NM, Burbules LDC, et al. Mission creep in the IRB world. Science. 2006;1312:1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barasch A, Cunha-Cruz J, Curro FA. Dental risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw. J Den Res. 2011;90(2):439–444.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rivera SM. Clinical research from proposal to implementation: what every clinical investigator should know about the institutional review board. J Investig Med. 2008;56(8):975–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirshon JM, Krugman SD, Witting MD, et al. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1417–1420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: Optimizing Human Subject Protection, November 19–21, 2006.

  14. Employment situation of dentists in private practice. American Dental Association News. 2007;1.

  15. Freedberg S. Dental abuse seen driven by private equity investments. Bloomberg news. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/dental-abuse-seen-driven-by-private-equity-investments.html. Published May 16, 2012. Accessed May 21, 2012.

  16. Mold JW, Peterson KA. Primary care practice based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(suppl 1): s12–s20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marwick C. Networks aim to bridge gap between clinical research, medical practice. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:478–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. London A. Reasonable risks in clinical research: a critique and a proposal for the integrative approach. Stat Med. 2006;25:2869–2885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick Curro DMD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Curro, F., Van Thompson, P., Naftolin, F. et al. Practice-Based Research Network Infrastructure Design for Institutional Review Board Risk Assessment and Generalizability of Clinical Results. Ther Innov Regul Sci 47, 82–89 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861512456284

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861512456284

Keywords

Navigation