IRB 지속심사와 연구 미준수 연관성 분석

Abstract

The continuing review of ongoing research approved by the Institutional Review Boards(IRB) is one of the ways to protect human subjects. Though the approval expiration date for new tasks depends on the risk assessment of said task, it is generally limited by law not to exceed a maximum of one year. Continuing review is required to extend the approval expiration date. Through continuing review, the IRB determines whether the research is conducted under the approved protocol, whether any side effects were reported timely, and whether the risk-to-benefit ratio remains favorable. This research used 784 cases of data reviewed by the C University Hospital's clinical research support system from 2019 to 2021 in a retrospective matter and analyzed the characteristics of research and researchers in non-compliance and compliance groups, and types of non-compliances, finding significant differences. Non-compliance groups were highly frequent in investigator initiated trials(IIT), non-clinical trials, and studies without clinical research coordinators, while compliance groups were more frequent in sponsor initiated trials(SIT), studies with co-investigator, and studies with clinical research coordinators. In addition, after analyzing the types of non-compliance, the non-compliance with the IRB reporting and non-compliance with the consent process were high in non-compliance groups. Therefore, we analyzed the relationship between non-compliance and compliance groups in continuing review to find a way to contribute for the ultimate purpose of IRB, protection of human subjects.