1 / 8

Handling Conflicts in Clinical Research Review at NIMH – January 2006 Insights

This archived document discusses the handling of conflicts during the peer review of clinical research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) as of January 23, 2006. Authored by Dr. David I. Sommers, it outlines the organizational structure of the review process, including the Interventions Research Review Committee and Services Research Review Committee, detailing their roles in evaluating mental health treatment and service systems. The report also addresses conflict of interest issues among reviewers, the restructuring plan implemented in 2006, and emphasizes the importance of maintaining integrity in research assessments.

livana
Télécharger la présentation

Handling Conflicts in Clinical Research Review at NIMH – January 2006 Insights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. Handling Conflicts in the Review of Clinical Research at NIMH Peer Review Advisory Committee January 23, 2006 David I. Sommers, Ph.D. – Scientific Review Administrator Division of Extramural Activities – Review Branch

  3. Current NIMH Review Structure • Interventions Research Review Committee (ITV) • development, evaluation, and improvement of mental health treatment interventions • efficacy to effectiveness trials • Services Research Review Committee (SRV) • assessment, evaluation, and improvement of mental health services and service systems • effectiveness trials • Special Emphasis Panels (SEPs) • including Conflict of Interest panels for ITV and SRV members • RFA’s, centers, some training grants

  4. ITV and SRV • approximately 25 members each, including 2-3 public reviewers and • numbers referred to ITV have been approximately 130 -145 to ITV and 90 -110 to SRV • increasing number and diversity/breadth of applications over the last three years – use of many ad-hoc reviewers • to keep workload manageable each round, many applications diverted to SEP’s – this included member conflicts • actual workload kept to approximately 65-75 applications per round

  5. Restructuring Plan – effective July 1, 2006 • Interventions Committee for Adult Mood and Anxiety Disorders (ITMA) • Interventions Committee for Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders, Personality Disorders, and Dementia (ITSP) • Interventions Committee for Disorders involving Children and their Families (ITVC) Interventions Committees: Services Committees: • Mental Health Services in MH Specialty Settings (SRSP) • Mental Health Services in Non-Specialty Settings (SRNS)

  6. Conflicts of Interest • generally not a big a problem as trials tend to be small • N=500–600 is a large trial - typically a multisite R01 • R34’S – treatment development applications typically have 30-50 subjects • projects involving multi-site trials/multiple PI’s create greatest conflict situations • do screen for drug company conflicts if a definitive test of a particular agent is proposed – or a head to head comparison, i.e. one agent better than another – these are rare • new committee structure will often provide a home of member conflicts • have not had to request waivers

  7. Conflicts of Interest (cont) • Permanent member participant in an application – assigned to another standing study section or SEP. • Temporary reviewer identified as having a significant role with an application – not invited to participate. • Temporary reviewer – minor role (i.e., consultant) with an application likely out-of-the-room conflict.

  8. COI SEPS • do not necessarily aim for parent committee representation – past or present • best practice is to not have committee SRA do the meeting • percentiled against the NIMH base (ITV+SRV) • anecdotally - no advantage or disadvantage to PI’s re. funding – lower rate of unscoring

More Related