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) 101 – Parkinson’s Disease
RWE 101 - Parkinson’s Disease Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to clinical evidence regarding the usage and potential benefits or risks of a treatment derived from analysis of real-world data [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Benefits of RWE in the Context of Rare Diseases
RWE 101 - Benefits of RWE in the Context of Rare Diseases Real-world evidence (RWE) refers to information on health care that comes from real-world settings, such as electronic [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Disease Prevalence vs Incidence
RWE 101 - Disease Prevalence vs Incidence Real-world evidence (RWE), derived from real-world data (RWD), allows us to gain insights into disease prevalence and incidence outside of controlled clinical [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Principles for Ensuring that Research Results are Reliable, Valid, and Objective
RWE 101 - Principles for Ensuring that Research Results are Reliable, Valid, and Objective Ensuring that research results are reliable, valid, and objective requires careful planning, execution, and evaluation. [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional?
RWE 101 - Why Should Non-Interventional Studies NOT be Promotional? Non-interventional studies (NIS) are designed to observe and analyze data from real-world clinical settings without intervening or manipulating any [...]
Real World Evidence (RWE) 101 – Seeding Studies
RWE 101 - Seeding Studies Seeding studies, in the context of real-world evidence (RWE), refer to studies that were conducted by pharmaceutical or medical device companies after a product's [...]







