Profiling of CSF Reliability of Diagnosis 英文参考文献.docVIP

Correspondence Research Ethics Boards: Size, Not Money Review Board (WIRB) and address the errors and misconceptions contained therein. We have worked diligently to protect the IRB decision-making process from the “for- pro?t” con?ict and many believe that WIRB has set the standard for separation of board and business in the IRB community. More than 200 people visit WIRB each year to observe our processes, systems, and board meetings. These visitors ?nd that: ? The ethics review process is totally separate from the business of WIRB. ? The regulations are carefully and completely respected on a daily basis. ? Freedom of decision-making is expected by and of each board member. ? Board members and alternates are fully trained and regularly updated. ? Appropriate expertise is available. ? Meetings are convened. ? Disapprovals are as respected as approvals. ? There is never pressure to change a decision. ? WIRB’s work comes from the 148 academic and other institutions where WIRB is listed on the Federalwide Assurance form and includes both federally funded and privately funded research from non-institutionally based investigators; about one-third comes from the 400+ public companies, contract research organizations, and foundations that fund medical research. Joal Hill I read with interest the debate about for-pro?t versus non-pro?t institutional review boards (IRBs) [1], but was disappointed that no one addressed the ability (or inability) of for-pro?t IRBs to review studies with the local context of research subjects in mind and then monitor what actually occurs during the consent process throughout the research trial. To my mind the “bigness” of for-pro?t IRBs may be more of an impediment in protecting research subjects than their inherent con?ict of interest. Our IRB has reviewed consent forms approved by central/for-pro?t IRBs that contained obvious errors such as schemas that did not match protocol narrative and use of eight point font in a study of geri