Choi, Yong-Sung;Lee, Sun Ju;Yim, Hyeon Woo;Choe, Byung-in;Lee, Jae Won;Oh, Sang-cheul;Shin, Im Hee;Huh, Jung-Sik;Kwon, Ivo;Kim, Jin Seok;Yoo, Soyoung;Cho, Hyunin;Lee, Mi-Kyung;Shin, Hee-Young;Kim, Duck-An
5
Purpose: Institutional review board (IRB) classifies risks of clinical trials into less than minimal risk, minor increase over minimal risk, and more than minimal risk. Based on classification and evaluation for risk, IRB decides whether permitting consent exemption or asking additional protection for clinical research subject or not. The purpose of this study is to analyze how IRB members evaluate minimal risk by sending questionnaire survey with 12 predetermined scenarios. Methods: IRB members and researchers (pediatrician, gastroenterologist, neurologist, and neurosurgeon) in 11 different hospitals were asked to answer survey questions via email or online. We analyzed the differences of answers among several subgroups in each predetermined scenarios. Result: Responders were 212 personnel(110 researchers and 102 IRB members) from 11 centers. There were significant differences between IRB members and researchers in response such as blood sampling, skin prick test, one time catheterization in a girl, spinal tapping in child, non-enhance MRI in child, non-enhance MRI with chrolal hydrate in a child, spinal tapping without anesthesia in adult, bioequivalence test, gastric endoscopy, and non-enhance CT. significant differences between medical IRB members and non-medical members were also revealed in one time catheterization in a girl, spinal tapping in a child, non-enhance MRI in a child, bioequivalence test. Depending on researchers' department, they responded differently in several questionnaires as well. Conclusions: We have found that IRB members and researchers evaluate the risks differently. Researchers compared to IRB members, medical IRB members compared to non-medical members answered less than minimal risk in many cases. In assessing and evaluating the risks associated with the study, medical IRB members answered predetermined scenarios as less dangerous compared to non-medical IRB members. Difference among researchers where also revealed significantly. Researchers answered predetermined scenarios as less dangerous compare to other department researchers, especially in predetermined scenarios containing procedures they are familiar with.