An Institutional Review Board (IRB) and a Research Ethics Committee (REC) are two different types of bodies that are responsible for ensuring that research involving human subjects is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. While the terms are often used interchangeably, there are some differences between an IRB and a REC.
In the United States, an IRB is a committee that is established by an institution, such as a university or hospital, to review and approve research protocols that involve human subjects. The IRB is responsible for ensuring that the study is designed and conducted in an ethical manner, that the risks to participants are minimized, and that the potential benefits of the study outweigh any potential harms. The IRB also monitors ongoing studies to ensure that they continue to meet ethical and safety standards.
In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, a Research Ethics Committee (REC) may have a similar role to an IRB. RECs are independent committees that review research proposals to ensure that they meet ethical and legal requirements, and that they are designed in a way that respects the rights and welfare of human participants. RECs may also provide ongoing monitoring and review of ongoing studies.
While there are some differences in the way that IRBs and RECs are structured and operate, their overall purpose is the same: to ensure that research involving human subjects is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner. Both IRBs and RECs may require researchers to submit detailed study protocols and obtain informed consent from study participants, and both may monitor ongoing studies to ensure that they continue to meet ethical and safety standards.
Share this story...
Real World Evidence (RWE) – TMF Reference Model versus the Real-World Study Document Index (RWS-DI)
RWE 101 - TMF Reference Model versus the Real-World Study Document Index (RWS-DI) The Real World Study-Document Index (RWS-DI) is a framework developed by a working group of RWE [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – ISF vs TMF
RWE 101 - ISF vs TMF Investigator Site File (ISF) and Trial (Study) Master File (TMF) are key elements in managing clinical and observational studies. They are distinct but [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Study Conduct
RWE 101 - Study Conduct Once the study has been set up, the study conduct phase begins. This phase includes several key activities that ensure the smooth running of [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Monitoring
RWE 101 - Monitoring Monitoring requirements for Real-World Evidence (RWE) studies may differ from those of traditional randomized controlled trials due to the nature of data collection and the [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – eConsent
RWE 101 - eConsent Electronic consent or eConsent refers to the process of using electronic systems and processes to convey information related to the study and to obtain and [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Consent to Participate in Research vs Consent to Access and Process Sensitive Healthcare Data (GDPR)
RWE 101 - Consent to Participate in Research vs Consent to Access and Process Sensitive Healthcare Data (GDPR) Consent to participate in research and consent to access and process [...]







