While ethical considerations predominate, scientific merit can impact Institutional Review Board (IRB) determinations: a cross-sectional study

Background and Objectives: To determine the most common reasons for Institutional Review Boards deferral of biomedical research proposals. Methods: Cross-sectional study administered to chairs, vice-chairs, and co-chairs of IRBs at NIH-funded institutions. Results: Data forms were distributed to IRB chairs at 21 of 25 NIH-funded institutions (four declined to participate), with an institutional response rate of 86% (18/21). Overall, ethical considerations were more likely than scientific merit to be a reason for protocol deferral. Common ethical considerations for deferral were inadequate informed consent, inadequate detail for risk assessment, insufficient protection of participant safety, and inadequate minimization of risks. Important elements of scientific merit were appropriate research design, adequate adverse event reporting, and the importance of knowledge to be gained. Nonsponsored, investigator-initiated proposals (including those receiving internal funding) were more likely to be deferred (66%), usually due to inadequate protocol development (43%), less external vetting and oversight (20%), and submissions from inexperienced faculty (16%). Conclusion: Deferrals may be avoided by careful compliance with ethical considerations, and by ensuring sufficient scientific merit of the proposal, with research design optimized for participant safety. Those submitting investigator-initiated proposals may consider obtaining at least partial funding to decrease the risk of deferral.