{"id":2533,"date":"2015-05-18T13:24:32","date_gmt":"2015-05-18T13:24:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.staging-protocolbuilderpro.kinsta.cloud\/?p=2533"},"modified":"2022-01-13T14:31:25","modified_gmt":"2022-01-13T14:31:25","slug":"common-protocol-development-errors-part-three","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/protocolbuilderpro.com\/common-protocol-development-errors-part-three\/","title":{"rendered":"Common Protocol Development Errors (Part Three)"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”full_width” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern”][vc_column][vc_empty_space height=”12px”][vc_column_text]In the last of this three-part series, we explore common types of information or documentation that may be inconsistent in investigator-initiated protocol submissions to an IRB.<\/p>\n

It is a common sentiment among clinical investigators that the process of developing and submitting a human subject research protocol for review and approval by an IRB is onerous, lengthy and complicated. For researchers writing investigated-initiated research, the process may seem like a labyrinth of regulatory and institutional requirements. Generally speaking, most IRB submission errors fall into these categories:<\/p>\n