The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Twenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey.

A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. This was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March 2022. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Institutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research.

Human design composite chart generator