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
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 the Japanese Society of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (JSCPT).
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
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
U2 - 10.3999/jscpt.47.105
DO - 10.3999/jscpt.47.105
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:84979538883
SN - 0388-1601
VL - 47
SP - 105
EP - 113
JO - Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
JF - Japanese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
IS - 3
ER -