{"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
Inconsistent Information<\/b><\/p>\n
An IRB submission often requires the same information in multiple locations. Sometimes the study protocol or application contains information that is not consistent from one section of the submission to another. The most common inconsistencies include:<\/p>\n
Interchangeable Terminology<\/b><\/p>\n
Certain words, including \u201canonymous\u201d and \u201cconfidential\u201d are often used interchangeably when they actually mean different things. Anonymous<\/i> means that there is no link between the participants and the data they provide. Confidential<\/i> means that there is<\/i> a link between participants and the data they provide, but the link will be unknown to everyone except the researchers and parties specified during the consent process.<\/p>\n
Misaligned Objectives and Endpoints<\/b><\/p>\n
In some cases, a researcher with a well-defined research question and clearly stated study objectives may not follow through to reveal adequate endpoints.<\/p>\n
Endpoints are the main way that the results of a trial will be assessed. They should be decided in the study design before any patients are enrolled.<\/p>\n
For example, perhaps a physician uses a treatment off-label regularly in clinical care, and now wants to conduct a research study to gather data to support the treatment\u2019s use. The researcher provides a protocol that contains detailed procedures, but doesn\u2019t include the plan for assessing the results and determining whether the endpoint is achieved.<\/p>\n
An effective clinical trial design results in the reduction of errors and bias. It also provides a high degree of credibility, reproducibility and validity. Having a clear, complete and simple protocol design allows investigators to advance clinical research while protecting human subjects.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n