• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.6 no.2
• /
• pp.38-47
• /
• 2024

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficiency of 2 types of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for multicenter research. Methods: The 2 types are joint IRB and local IRB. For this study, we selected multicenter research reviewed and approved by joint or local IRBs between October 2019 and December 2022. We assessed the time it took for each IRB to approve the research based on the number of working days per IRB review case. We then stratified the data according to the number of participating institutions, the type of research, and the type of IRB review. Results: The results of our study show that joint IRB is more efficient than local IRB. The median IRB approval time for joint IRB was 27 days, 73.5% shorter than local IRB (27 days vs. 102 days, respectively, p<0.001). As the number of participating institutions in multicenter research increased, joint IRB reviews became more efficient regarding the required approval time than local IRB reviews. We also found that joint IRB was faster in every administrative step until new research was approved (p<0.005) when compared to local IRB. Conclusion: Our study highlights that a single review through a joint IRB can significantly reduce the time required for IRB approval of multicenter research. This approach can ensure that all participating institutions follow the same review results. Therefore, a single IRB review effectively reduces the burden of IRB for multicenter research.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.37-55
• /
• 2021

On March 19, 2021, the Korean Bioethics Association and related academic circles published a joint statement criticizing the partial revision of Infectious Disease Control And Prevention Act. However, according to the Bioethics And Safety Act of Korea, research conducted by the state or local governments for public welfare is excluded from human subjects research project. In addition, since the Korean legal system is not based on the dichotomy between research and surveillance, the discussion of the US Common Rule cannot be directly applied to Korea. For the harmonious operation of the state's duty to manage infectious diseases and the Institutional Review Boards, institutional alternatives should be prepared in consideration of the following issues. First, the related academic community should first pay attention to the problems of the current laws in Korea. Second, it should be understood that the state is carrying out many tasks without the consent of the parties in order to fulfill its duty to manage infectious diseases. Third, when presenting institutional alternatives, it is necessary to consider the feasibility of implementation in Korea. An in-depth discussion of the institutional alternatives by the Medical Law Society and other related academic circles is necessary.