Survey of institutional review boards in Japan

Yuka Narumoto, Shigeki Nishihara, Madoka Saito, Kumiko Ueda, Satoshi Kuroda, Akihito Higashikage, Sakae Hongo-Aoe, Yasuhiro Kawakami, Yoshihisa Kitamura, Toshiaki Sendo

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

In Japan, more than 1000 institutional review boards (IRBs) were registered with the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) as of April 2012. To improve efficiency, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare calls for active utilization of cooperative or central IRBs. However, little progress has been made. The sponsors address this issue from the point of view of efficiency. Therefore, we performed a nationwide questionnaire survey on the status of IRB. Many medical institutions individually established IRBs, but the secretariats of IRBs felt that the duties were a burden. On the other hand, there was reluctance to request review from other IRBs. Such situation is similar to that in the Netherlands before accreditation was introduced. As the installation standard of IRB was set up by the government, an accreditation system should also be set up by the government or an independent agency and aggregation of local IRBs to one that meets the accreditation standard would be required to improve efficiency and quality of review on clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)105-113
Number of pages9
JournalJapanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Volume47
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Japan
Accreditation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Netherlands
Clinical Trials
Equipment and Supplies
Health
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Central institutional review board
  • GCP
  • Institutional review board
  • Questionnaire survey

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Narumoto, Y., Nishihara, S., Saito, M., Ueda, K., Kuroda, S., Higashikage, A., ... Sendo, T. (2016). Survey of institutional review boards in Japan. Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 47(3), 105-113.

Survey of institutional review boards in Japan. / Narumoto, Yuka; Nishihara, Shigeki; Saito, Madoka; Ueda, Kumiko; Kuroda, Satoshi; Higashikage, Akihito; Hongo-Aoe, Sakae; Kawakami, Yasuhiro; Kitamura, Yoshihisa; Sendo, Toshiaki.

In: Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2016, p. 105-113.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Narumoto, Y, Nishihara, S, Saito, M, Ueda, K, Kuroda, S, Higashikage, A, Hongo-Aoe, S, Kawakami, Y, Kitamura, Y & Sendo, T 2016, 'Survey of institutional review boards in Japan', Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 105-113.
Narumoto Y, Nishihara S, Saito M, Ueda K, Kuroda S, Higashikage A et al. Survey of institutional review boards in Japan. Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2016;47(3):105-113.
Narumoto, Yuka ; Nishihara, Shigeki ; Saito, Madoka ; Ueda, Kumiko ; Kuroda, Satoshi ; Higashikage, Akihito ; Hongo-Aoe, Sakae ; Kawakami, Yasuhiro ; Kitamura, Yoshihisa ; Sendo, Toshiaki. / Survey of institutional review boards in Japan. In: Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2016 ; Vol. 47, No. 3. pp. 105-113.
@article{b798fd123ea044e9bb4f3fc1d4d010a4,
title = "Survey of institutional review boards in Japan",
abstract = "In Japan, more than 1000 institutional review boards (IRBs) were registered with the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) as of April 2012. To improve efficiency, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare calls for active utilization of cooperative or central IRBs. However, little progress has been made. The sponsors address this issue from the point of view of efficiency. Therefore, we performed a nationwide questionnaire survey on the status of IRB. Many medical institutions individually established IRBs, but the secretariats of IRBs felt that the duties were a burden. On the other hand, there was reluctance to request review from other IRBs. Such situation is similar to that in the Netherlands before accreditation was introduced. As the installation standard of IRB was set up by the government, an accreditation system should also be set up by the government or an independent agency and aggregation of local IRBs to one that meets the accreditation standard would be required to improve efficiency and quality of review on clinical trials.",
keywords = "Central institutional review board, GCP, Institutional review board, Questionnaire survey",
author = "Yuka Narumoto and Shigeki Nishihara and Madoka Saito and Kumiko Ueda and Satoshi Kuroda and Akihito Higashikage and Sakae Hongo-Aoe and Yasuhiro Kawakami and Yoshihisa Kitamura and Toshiaki Sendo",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "105--113",
journal = "Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics",
issn = "0388-1601",
publisher = "Japanese Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survey of institutional review boards in Japan

AU - Narumoto, Yuka

AU - Nishihara, Shigeki

AU - Saito, Madoka

AU - Ueda, Kumiko

AU - Kuroda, Satoshi

AU - Higashikage, Akihito

AU - Hongo-Aoe, Sakae

AU - Kawakami, Yasuhiro

AU - Kitamura, Yoshihisa

AU - Sendo, Toshiaki

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - In Japan, more than 1000 institutional review boards (IRBs) were registered with the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) as of April 2012. To improve efficiency, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare calls for active utilization of cooperative or central IRBs. However, little progress has been made. The sponsors address this issue from the point of view of efficiency. Therefore, we performed a nationwide questionnaire survey on the status of IRB. Many medical institutions individually established IRBs, but the secretariats of IRBs felt that the duties were a burden. On the other hand, there was reluctance to request review from other IRBs. Such situation is similar to that in the Netherlands before accreditation was introduced. As the installation standard of IRB was set up by the government, an accreditation system should also be set up by the government or an independent agency and aggregation of local IRBs to one that meets the accreditation standard would be required to improve efficiency and quality of review on clinical trials.

AB - In Japan, more than 1000 institutional review boards (IRBs) were registered with the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) as of April 2012. To improve efficiency, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare calls for active utilization of cooperative or central IRBs. However, little progress has been made. The sponsors address this issue from the point of view of efficiency. Therefore, we performed a nationwide questionnaire survey on the status of IRB. Many medical institutions individually established IRBs, but the secretariats of IRBs felt that the duties were a burden. On the other hand, there was reluctance to request review from other IRBs. Such situation is similar to that in the Netherlands before accreditation was introduced. As the installation standard of IRB was set up by the government, an accreditation system should also be set up by the government or an independent agency and aggregation of local IRBs to one that meets the accreditation standard would be required to improve efficiency and quality of review on clinical trials.

KW - Central institutional review board

KW - GCP

KW - Institutional review board

KW - Questionnaire survey

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979538883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979538883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84979538883

VL - 47

SP - 105

EP - 113

JO - Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

JF - Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

SN - 0388-1601

IS - 3

ER -