Navigating IRB Expedited Review for Minor Changes: A Researcher's Guide to Efficient Protocol Modifications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide for researchers and drug development professionals on leveraging expedited IRB review for minor changes to approved studies. It covers the foundational principles of expedited review, outlines specific categories and procedural steps for submitting minor modifications, addresses common challenges and optimization strategies, and clarifies the distinction between expedited and full board review. The goal is to empower researchers to manage post-approval changes efficiently while maintaining regulatory compliance and protecting human subjects.

Understanding Expedited Review: What It Is and When It Applies to Minor Changes

Within the framework of Institutional Review Board (IRB) operations, expedited review serves as a crucial procedural mechanism for evaluating specific categories of research and modifications. Contrary to what the name might imply, its defining characteristic is not the speed of the process but rather the defined scope of research eligible for this type of review [1]. This process is governed by federal regulations that allow certain types of research to be reviewed by a single, experienced IRB reviewer rather than the full convened board [2] [1]. The primary purpose of this mechanism is to reduce administrative burdens on the full IRB while maintaining rigorous protections for research participants [3]. This document outlines application notes and protocols for utilizing expedited review, specifically focusing on minor changes to previously approved research, within the context of a broader thesis on IRB operations.

Regulatory Foundation and Quantitative Landscape

Expedited review is permitted under federal regulations, including 45 CFR 46.110 for DHHS-funded research and 21 CFR 56.110 for FDA-regulated studies [2]. A fundamental requirement for any research to qualify for expedited review is that it must involve no more than minimal risk to participants [1]. Minimal risk is defined as the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research being not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provide guidance, stating that any change that "materially affects the balance of benefits and risks" or "increases the risk or discomfort of the study" should not be considered minor [3]. The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP) also requires accredited organizations to have written procedures for the expedited review of changes to previously approved studies [3].

A study of IRB policies across top U.S. research institutions reveals significant variation in how institutions formalize guidelines for minor changes. The quantitative data below summarizes the findings from an analysis of 184 institutions [3]:

Table 1: Prevalence of Policies Defining or Illustrating Minor Changes

Policy Characteristic	Number of IRBs	Percentage	95% Confidence Interval
Provided a definition of minor changes	96	52.2%	44.7%, 59.6%
Provided examples of minor changes	80	43.5%	36.2%, 51.0%
Provided either a definition or examples	125	67.9%	60.7%, 74.6%

Table 2: Elements Included in Definitions of "Minor Change" (n=96)

Definitional Element	Percentage of Definitions
No significant change to risks or discomforts	82.3%
No significant change to research methods, aims, or procedures	50.0%
No significant change to risk/benefit ratio	34.4%
No significant change to the research team	18.8%
No significant change to research facilities	18.8%
No significant change to study population size or composition	18.8%
No significant change to consent process or willingness to participate	10.4%
Other elements	20.8%

The study also found that the presence of a policy defining or illustrating minor changes was positively associated with higher levels of research funding and AAHRPP accreditation [3].

Protocol for Determining Eligibility for Expedited Review

Scope and Categories of Eligibility

Research may qualify for expedited review in two primary circumstances:

• Initial Review: For new research projects that fall into one of the nine categories of research activities published by OHRP and that involve no more than minimal risk [2] [1]. Examples include:
  • Studies involving the collection of hair, saliva, or dental plaque samples [1].
  • Studies of blood samples from healthy volunteers [1].
  • Studies of existing pathological specimens with patient identifiers [1].
• Continuing Review: For some research that was initially approved by the full board but where the risk level or status has changed, and it now qualifies for expedited review [2].
• Modifications to Previously Approved Research: For "minor changes" to a study that has already received IRB approval [2]. This is the primary focus of this protocol.

Operational Protocol: Defining and Reviewing Minor Changes

The following workflow outlines the step-by-step process for an IRB to evaluate whether a proposed modification to an approved study qualifies as a "minor change" eligible for expedited review.

IRB Decision Workflow for Minor Changes

Step-by-Step Procedural Details:

• Submission Intake: The investigator submits a modification request using the institution's designated platform (e.g., a modification cover sheet in PittPRO [2]), including all relevant supporting documents.
• Preliminary Assessment by HRP Staff: HRP (Human Research Protections) staff conduct an in-depth review of all materials [2]. The reviewer is designated by the IRB chair and must be an experienced member without conflicts of interest [2].
• Eligibility Determination Using Criteria: The designated reviewer applies the institutional definition of "minor change." As per common policy, a modification is considered minor if it:
  • Would not materially affect an assessment of the risks and benefits of the study.
  • Does not substantially change the specific aims of the study [2]. Any change that increases the risk or discomfort of the study is generally not considered minor [3].
• Review and Approval Authority: The designated reviewer evaluates the submission against all regulatory criteria for approval [2] [1]. Reviewers conducting an expedited review may exercise all of the authority of the IRB except that they may not disapprove a study [1]. If disapproval is considered, or if issues cannot be resolved, the submission must be referred to the full convened IRB for review [2] [1].
• Documentation and Notification: Upon approval, the reviewer documents the determination in the IRB system, specifying the basis for granting expedited review [2]. The principal investigator is then notified via an official letter that includes the IRB number, date of approval, and the expiration date of the approval [2].

The Researcher's Toolkit: Materials for Protocol Amendments

For researchers preparing and submitting minor changes, the following tools and materials are essential for a compliant and efficient process.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Protocol Amendments

Item	Function & Purpose
Modification Cover Sheet	Official form providing a summary and justification for the proposed change; required for IRB submission [2].
Revised Protocol Document	Tracked-changes version of the study protocol clearly highlighting all proposed modifications for reviewer clarity.
Updated Informed Consent Document	Revised consent form with all changes highlighted, ensuring participants are fully informed of any alterations that affect them [2].
Revised Recruitment Materials	Updated advertisements, flyers, or scripts if the modification affects participant recruitment [2].
Statistical Justification	Documentation providing rationale for changes to enrollment numbers, if applicable [2].
IRB-Specific Checklists	Institutional worksheets (e.g., HRP-313) used to ensure all regulatory criteria for expedited review are met [2] [1].
Regulatory Citation Guide	Reference document for relevant federal regulations (45 CFR 46.110, 21 CFR 56.110) to justify expedited category [2].

Common Examples and Non-Examples of Minor Changes

To ensure consistent application, the following list, derived from institutional policies, provides clear illustrations of changes that typically do and do not qualify for expedited review.

The diagram below provides a visual guide to classifying common protocol changes.

Classification of Common Protocol Changes

Expedited review for minor changes is a fundamentally scoped process, defined by strict regulatory and institutional criteria centered on risk and scientific aims. Its successful implementation relies on clear, consistent policies and the expert judgment of designated reviewers. Adherence to the protocols and guidelines outlined in this document ensures that the integrity of human subject protections is maintained while promoting administrative efficiency in the conduct of ethical research. Researchers and IRB professionals must collaborate, using well-defined tools and examples, to navigate this process effectively, ensuring that the rights and welfare of participants remain the paramount consideration.

The minimal risk criterion serves as the fundamental gateway for expedited Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, a streamlined process essential for advancing research without compromising ethical standards. According to the federal regulations at 45 CFR 46.102(i), minimal risk means that "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [4]. This definition establishes the critical threshold that research must fall below to qualify for expedited review procedures, which are conducted by a single experienced IRB reviewer rather than a full convened board [5] [1].

The interpretation of this definition, particularly the "daily life" benchmark, has generated considerable discussion within the research ethics community. Historically, confusion has arisen regarding whether this standard refers to the daily life of an average person in the general population or the specific population enrolled in the study [6]. A developing consensus suggests that a uniform standard based on the general population is most appropriate, as a population-specific definition could unjustly permit individuals from higher-risk backgrounds to be exposed to greater research risks under the minimal risk category [6]. This interpretation aligns with the "healthy persons" standard required for research involving prisoners [6] [7].

Minimal Risk as the Gateway to Expedited Review

The Inseparable Link Between Minimal Risk and Expedited Review

Expedited review represents an administrative efficiency permitted under federal regulations for specific categories of research that present no more than minimal risk to human subjects [8]. The process is not necessarily "fast" despite its name, but rather indicates that the review is conducted by a single IRB board member instead of a convened committee [5] [1]. This distinction is crucial for researchers to understand, as it significantly impacts review timelines and procedures.

The regulatory criteria for expedited review are twofold and must both be met. First, the research must present no more than minimal risk to participants. Second, the research procedures must fit into one or more of the nine categories specified in federal regulations [8] [9]. It is vital to recognize that the IRB holds final authority in determining whether research qualifies for expedited review, regardless of the researcher's assessment [8] [9].

Application to Minor Changes in Approved Research

The minimal risk criterion extends beyond initial review to encompass modifications to previously approved research. Expedited review may be used for minor changes to existing research that do not substantially alter the research design or risk profile [5]. Examples of such minor changes include adding new investigators or research sites, translating documents, or adding procedures that themselves fall within expedited categories 1-7, provided these additions do not constitute a substantial alteration of the research design [5].

Substantial alterations that would preclude expedited review include significant increases in enrollment, certain financial disclosures, increased volume of blood draws, or inclusion of new subject populations that change the risk-benefit profile [5]. This application of the minimal risk standard to research modifications creates an efficient pathway for continuing research progress while maintaining appropriate oversight.

Table: Categories of Research Eligible for Expedited Review

Category Number	Description	Examples & Specific Limitations
2	Blood collection via finger stick, heel stick, ear stick, or venipuncture	Healthy adults: ≤550 ml/8 weeks, ≤2 times/week [5] [8]Children/other adults: ≤50 ml or 3 ml/kg/8 weeks [5] [8]
3	Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means	Hair clippings, saliva, plaque, deciduous teeth [5] [8]
4	Noninvasive data collection routinely employed in clinical practice	ECG, ultrasound, moderate exercise, MRI (no X-rays/microwaves) [8]
7	Research on individual/group characteristics or behavior	Surveys, interviews, focus groups, program evaluation [5] [8]
Continuing Review	Specific circumstances for ongoing review	Research closed to enrollment; only long-term follow-up remains; data analysis only [5] [8]

Quantitative Assessment Framework for Minimal Risk Determination

Blood and Biological Sample Collection Parameters

The expedited review categories include precise quantitative thresholds for procedures involving blood collection, providing clear benchmarks for researchers designing studies. For healthy, non-pregnant adults weighing at least 110 pounds, blood draws may not exceed 550 ml in an eight-week period with no more than two collections per week [5] [8]. For other adults and children, considering age, weight, and health, the amount drawn must not exceed the lesser of 50 ml or 3 ml per kg in an eight-week period, also with no more than two collections per week [5] [8].

These specific parameters demonstrate how regulators have operationalized the minimal risk concept for common research procedures. The variation in volume limits based on participant characteristics reflects a nuanced application of the minimal risk standard that accounts for vulnerability and physiological differences among potential research populations.

Risk Classification System

The University of Michigan's IRB guidance outlines a tiered risk classification system that elaborates beyond the binary minimal/greater-than-minimal risk distinction [7]. This framework includes:

• No more than minimal risk: Meets the regulatory definition of risks not exceeding those encountered in daily life [7]
• Minor increase over minimal risk: Research activities more harmful than daily life but where harms do not rise to moderate risk [7]
• Moderate risk: Activities that could cause temporary or moderate psychological, informational, or physical harms [7]
• High risk: Activities with potential for severe, long-lasting, or permanent harms [7]

This refined classification system assists researchers and IRBs in making more precise risk determinations, particularly for studies that fall near the boundaries of the minimal risk threshold.

Table: Risk Classification and Corresponding IRB Review Pathways

Risk Classification	Definition	Permissible Review Pathway	Examples
Minimal Risk	Probability/magnitude of harm not greater than daily life [4] [7]	Exempt or Expedited [9]	Surveys, noninvasive specimen collection, interviews [8] [9]
Minor Increase Over Minimal Risk	Exceeds daily life risks but doesn't reach moderate risk [7]	Full Committee (with special provisions for vulnerable populations) [7]	Research with children or adults with impaired consent capacity [7]
Moderate/High Risk	Potential for temporary/moderate to severe/permanent harm [7]	Full Committee Review [9]	Clinical trials of investigational products, invasive procedures [7] [9]

Experimental Protocol for Minimal Risk Determination

Standardized Assessment Methodology

Researchers can implement a systematic protocol to evaluate whether their proposed study qualifies as minimal risk. This methodological approach involves sequential assessment across multiple domains:

• Step 1: Daily Life Comparison - Compare each research procedure against experiences "ordinarily encountered in daily life" by the average healthy person in safe environments [6] [7]. Document specific comparable activities for each procedure.
• Step 2: Routine Examinations Benchmark - Evaluate procedures against those performed during "routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [4] [6]. Include educational tests for research in academic settings [6].
• Step 3: Probability-Magnitude Matrix - Assess both the likelihood and potential severity of each possible harm, recognizing that a high-magnitude risk with very low probability may still qualify as minimal risk [6] [7].
• Step 4: Special Population Consideration - If research involves vulnerable groups (children, prisoners, cognitively impaired individuals), apply the appropriate specific minimal risk standard for that population [7].
• Step 5: Expedited Category Alignment - Verify that all procedures align with one or more of the nine federally-recognized expedited review categories [5] [8].

Protocol Implementation and Documentation

The implementation of this assessment protocol requires thorough documentation for IRB submission. Researchers should create a comprehensive risk inventory table that lists each research procedure, identifies comparable daily life or routine examination activities, assesses both probability and magnitude of potential harms, and indicates alignment with specific expedited review categories. This methodological approach demonstrates to IRB reviewers that the researcher has conducted a systematic minimal risk assessment rather than a subjective judgment.

Regulatory and Reference Materials

Successful navigation of the minimal risk determination process requires researchers to utilize specific reference materials and methodological tools. These essential resources form the foundation for proper study design and IRB application preparation:

• 45 CFR 46.102(j) Regulatory Definition: The official federal definition of minimal risk serves as the primary reference point for all determinations [4] [7]. Researchers should consult the most recent version of the Common Rule provisions.
• Expedited Review Category List: The complete list of nine research categories eligible for expedited review provides the necessary framework for study design [5] [8]. This should be consulted during the earliest stages of protocol development.
• Institutional Guidance Documents: Many institutions (e.g., University of Michigan, UC Davis, Johns Hopkins) provide specific interpretations and implementation guidance for minimal risk determinations [1] [8] [7]. These often include valuable examples and case studies relevant to particular research contexts.
• Risk Assessment Matrix Template: A standardized template for evaluating both probability and magnitude of potential harms assists researchers in systematic documentation of their risk assessment [7].
• Special Population Standards Reference: Guidelines for applying minimal risk standards to research involving children, prisoners, cognitively impaired individuals, or other vulnerable populations ensure appropriate protections [7].

Implementation Tools and Templates

Beyond reference materials, researchers should employ practical implementation tools to streamline the minimal risk determination process:

• Procedure Comparison Database: A curated list of common research procedures with corresponding daily life analogies and routine examination comparisons accelerates the assessment process.
• Blood Draw Calculator: A tool that automatically calculates compliance with volume and frequency limits based on participant characteristics (age, weight, health status) ensures adherence to regulatory thresholds [5] [8].
• Benign Behavioral Intervention Checklist: A verification tool for studies employing mild behavioral interventions to ensure they meet criteria for exemption or expedited review [9].
• Minor Change Assessment Guide: A decision tree for determining whether proposed modifications to approved research qualify as "minor changes" eligible for expedited review [5].

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Minimal Risk Determination

Tool Category	Specific Resource	Primary Function	Regulatory Citation
Regulatory Framework	45 CFR 46.102(j) Definition	Provides legal definition of minimal risk	[4] [7]
Procedure Classification	Expedited Review Categories (1-9)	Lists specific eligible procedures	[5] [8]
Vulnerable Population Guidance	Subpart D (Children) & Subpart C (Prisoners) Standards	Special minimal risk standards for protected groups	[6] [7]
Risk Assessment Tool	Probability-Magnitude Matrix	Systematically evaluates potential harms	[6] [7]
Blood Collection Calculator	Volume/Frequency Limits Tool	Ensures compliance with quantitative thresholds	[5] [8]

The minimal risk criterion remains the indispensable foundation for expedited IRB review, creating an essential pathway for ethically sound yet efficient research oversight. Its proper application requires researchers to engage in systematic assessment of their protocols against established benchmarks of daily life experiences and routine examinations. The delineation of specific expedited review categories provides crucial guidance, but ultimately depends on this foundational risk determination.

For research involving minor changes to approved protocols, the minimal risk standard enables appropriate oversight without unduly burdensome procedures. As research methodologies evolve, continued attention to consistent interpretation and application of the minimal risk concept will ensure both the protection of research participants and the advancement of valuable scientific inquiry. Researchers who master the nuances of minimal risk assessment contribute significantly to both ethical integrity and operational efficiency in the research enterprise.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) expedited review is a regulatory provision that allows certain categories of research to be reviewed by a single IRB member rather than the full convened board. This process is designed for studies that present no more than minimal risk to human subjects, enabling a more efficient review process while maintaining rigorous ethical oversight [10] [11]. The expedited review mechanism is particularly relevant for minor changes research and low-risk studies, balancing thorough protection of human subjects with administrative efficiency.

For research to qualify for expedited review, it must meet specific criteria: the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research must not be greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations [11]. Additionally, identification of participants or their responses must not reasonably place them at risk of criminal or civil liability, or be damaging to their financial standing, employability, insurability, reputation, or be stigmatizing. Alternatively, the research must implement reasonable and appropriate protections so that risks related to invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality are no greater than minimal [11].

Regulatory Framework and Eligibility Criteria

Foundational Regulations

The expedited review process operates under federal regulations established by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [12]. These regulations specify nine distinct categories of research eligible for expedited review, with Categories 1 through 7 pertaining to both initial and continuing review, and Categories 8 and 9 pertaining only to continuing review [12].

The regulatory framework acknowledges that while expedited review streamlines the process, studies must still meet the same rigorous criteria for approval as those reviewed by the full board [10]. The single IRB reviewer retains the authority to require modifications or refer the study to the full board if the research appears to involve more than minimal risk or falls outside the expedited categories.

Scope and Limitations

Expedited review is applicable only to research activities that fall within the designated categories and involve no more than minimal risk. Studies intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices are not generally eligible for expedited review, including studies of cleared medical devices for new indications [12]. Similarly, research involving deception that may lead to subject distress or collection of identifiable data that could subject participants to more than minimal risk typically requires full board review [10].

Figure 1: Decision Pathway for Expedited Review Eligibility. This flowchart outlines the key determinations researchers must make when assessing whether their study qualifies for expedited review.

Comprehensive Categories of Expedited Research

Clinical Research on Drugs and Medical Devices (Category 1)

Category 1 encompasses clinical studies of drugs and medical devices under specific conditions. For drugs, an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) must not be required, though research on marketed drugs that significantly increases risks or decreases the acceptability of risks is ineligible [12]. For medical devices, an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) must not be required, or the device must be cleared/approved for marketing and used according to its cleared/approved labeling.

Key considerations: This category does not apply to studies intended to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices, including investigations of cleared devices for new indications. The research must maintain the risk profile consistent with the existing approval or exemption status.

Biological Specimen Collection (Categories 2 & 3)

Category 2 covers collection of blood samples via finger stick, heel stick, ear stick, or venipuncture with specific volume and frequency limitations based on subject population [12]. For healthy, nonpregnant adults weighing at least 110 pounds, amounts cannot exceed 550 ml in an 8-week period with collection no more than twice weekly. For other adults and children, limits are more restrictive—not exceeding the lesser of 50 ml or 3 ml per kg in an 8-week period, also with collection no more than twice weekly.

Category 3 involves prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means. Examples include hair and nail clippings in a nondisfiguring manner; deciduous teeth at time of exfoliation or if routine care indicates extraction; excreta and external secretions; uncannulated saliva; placenta removed at delivery; and mucosal/skin cells collected by buccal scraping, swab, or mouth washings [12]. The category explicitly includes vaginal, rectal, and nasal swabs that do not go beyond the cervical os, rectum, or nares, respectively.

Noninvasive Data Collection and Secondary Materials (Categories 4 & 5)

Category 4 addresses collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice, excluding those involving x-rays or microwaves [12]. When medical devices are used, they must be cleared/approved for marketing. Examples include physical sensors applied to the body surface; weighing or sensory acuity testing; MRI; electrocardiography; electroencephalography; thermography; ultrasound; and moderate exercise, muscular strength testing, or flexibility testing appropriate for the subject's age, weight, and health.

Category 5 covers research involving materials collected solely for non-research purposes, such as medical treatment or diagnosis [12]. This includes previously collected materials from either non-research or research purposes, provided materials originally collected for research were not collected for the currently proposed research. Some research in this category may qualify for exemption under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(4).

Behavioral and Recorded Data Research (Categories 6 & 7)

Category 6 involves collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes [12]. Importantly, expedited review does not apply if subject identification would reasonably place them at risk of criminal/civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, insurability, reputation, unless protections ensure risks related to privacy and confidentiality are no greater than minimal.

Category 7 includes research on individual or group characteristics/behavior and research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies [12]. This broad category encompasses studies of perception, cognition, motivation, identity, language, communication, cultural beliefs/practices, and social behavior. Some research in this category may be exempt under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2) and (b)(3).

Continuing Review (Categories 8 & 9)

Category 8 provides for continuing review of research previously approved by the convened IRB under specific circumstances: when research is permanently closed to new subject enrollment; all subjects have completed research-related interventions; and the research remains active only for long-term follow-up [12]. It also applies when no subjects have been enrolled with no additional risks identified, or when remaining activities are limited to data analysis.

Category 9 covers continuing review of research not conducted under an IND or IDE where other categories don't apply, but the IRB has determined and documented at a convened meeting that the research involves no greater than minimal risk with no additional risks identified [12].

Table 1: Detailed Overview of Expedited Review Categories

Category Number	Research Description	Specific Examples & Limitations	Risk Considerations
Category 1	Clinical studies of drugs and medical devices	Drugs: IND not required. Medical devices: IDE not required OR device used according to cleared/approved labeling	Excludes research that increases risks beyond acceptable levels for marketed products
Category 2	Blood collection through venipuncture or other methods	Healthy adults: ≤550 ml/8 weeks, ≤2 times/week. Others: ≤50 ml OR 3 ml/kg/8 weeks, ≤2 times/week	Amount and frequency limitations based on subject health, weight, and age
Category 3	Noninvasive biological specimen collection	Hair/nail clippings, saliva, dental plaque, mucosal cells, swabs not beyond anatomical boundaries	Must be truly noninvasive and nondisfiguring; specific anatomical limitations for swabs
Category 4	Noninvasive clinical data collection	MRI, ECG, EEG, ultrasound, moderate exercise, sensory testing	Procedures must be routine in clinical practice; no x-rays or microwaves
Category 5	Research with previously collected materials	Data, documents, records, specimens collected for non-research purposes	Materials not originally collected for the current proposed research
Category 6	Data from research recordings	Voice, video, digital, image recordings	Cannot use if identification creates risks > minimal without adequate protections
Category 7	Behavioral research & evaluation methods	Surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation of public behavior	Some studies may qualify for exempt status; cannot use with children for certain procedures
Category 8	Continuing review for completed studies	Studies closed to enrollment; only long-term follow-up or data analysis remains	Specific conditions must be met regarding enrollment status and remaining activities
Category 9	Continuing review for minimal risk studies	Research without IND/IDE not fitting other categories but deemed minimal risk	Requires documented IRB determination of no greater than minimal risk

Experimental Protocols for Common Expedited Research

Protocol for Blood Collection Studies (Category 2)

Purpose: To systematically collect blood samples for research purposes while ensuring participant safety and compliance with volume and frequency restrictions.

Materials and Reagents:

• Appropriate blood collection tubes (EDTA, heparin, serum separator)
• Venipuncture supplies or lancets for capillary sampling
• Alcohol swabs and gauze
• Bandages and personal protective equipment
• Biohazard containers for sharps disposal
• Specimen transport containers as needed

Procedure:

• Screening and Consent: Verify participant meets inclusion criteria regarding health status, weight, and pregnancy status. Obtain informed consent with specific attention to blood collection details.
• Volume Calculation: Calculate maximum allowable blood volume based on participant weight and health status (≤550 ml for healthy adults ≥110 lbs; ≤50 ml or 3 ml/kg for others).
• Collection Procedure: Perform venipuncture or capillary sampling using standard sterile technique.
• Post-Collection Care: Apply pressure to puncture site until bleeding stops, apply bandage, and provide post-phlebotomy instructions.
• Documentation: Record date, volume collected, and site condition. Update cumulative volume drawn in previous 8 weeks.
• Sample Processing: Process samples according to research requirements (centrifugation, aliquoting, storage).

Safety Monitoring: Monitor for vasovagal reactions during and after procedure. Document any adverse events. Enforce minimum 48-hour interval between collections and 8-week cumulative volume limits.

Protocol for Survey Research (Category 7)

Purpose: To administer surveys, interviews, or focus groups while protecting participant confidentiality and minimizing psychological risk.

Materials:

• Validated survey instruments or interview guides
• Digital or paper data collection forms
• Audio recording equipment (if applicable)
• Secure data storage systems
• Informed consent documents

Procedure:

• Instrument Validation: Pre-test survey instruments with small sample to identify confusing items, estimate completion time, and refine wording.
• Participant Recruitment: Implement recruitment strategy that avoids coercion and protects privacy.
• Informed Consent Process: Provide complete study information, including approximate time commitment, sensitive content topics, and confidentiality limitations.
• Data Collection: Administer survey, interview, or focus group in appropriate setting. For focus groups, establish ground rules for confidentiality among participants.
• Debriefing: Provide opportunity for participants to ask questions and receive additional resources if study covers sensitive topics.
• Data Security: Immediately de-identify data when possible. Store identifiable separately from response data. Implement encryption for digital files.

Confidentiality Protections: For sensitive topics, consider obtaining Certificate of Confidentiality. Plan for data destruction timeline. For online surveys, use secure platforms with SSL encryption.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Expedited Review Studies

Reagent/Material	Primary Function	Application Examples	Special Considerations
EDTA Blood Collection Tubes	Prevents coagulation by chelating calcium	Molecular studies, genetic analysis	Suitable for DNA isolation; not for electrolyte testing
Serum Separator Tubes	Facilitates serum separation after centrifugation	Biochemical assays, serological testing	Requires proper centrifugation protocol
RNA Stabilization Reagents	Preserves RNA integrity for transcriptomic studies	Gene expression analysis	Must be implemented immediately after collection
Proteinase Inhibitor Cocktails	Prevents protein degradation in samples	Proteomic research, protein assays	Specific formulations for different sample types
Buccal Swab Collection Kits	Noninvasive epithelial cell collection	Genetic studies, DNA analysis	Lower DNA yield than blood-based methods
Salivette Collection Devices	Standardized saliva collection	Hormone analysis, biomarker discovery	Variable composition based on collection method
- Secure Digital Recorders	Audio data capture for qualitative research	Interviews, focus groups, oral histories	Encryption capabilities essential for sensitive topics
Electronic Survey Platforms	Digital data collection for behavioral research	Surveys, psychological assessments	Must comply with institutional data security policies

Methodological Considerations

Risk Assessment in Expedited Research

Accurate risk assessment is fundamental to expedited review eligibility. Researchers must systematically evaluate both the probability and magnitude of potential harms, ensuring they do not exceed minimal risk thresholds. This requires careful consideration of the research procedures themselves, the vulnerability of the participant population, and the confidentiality protections implemented.

For behavioral research, risks may include psychological distress, social stigma, or breach of confidentiality. For biological specimen collection, physical discomfort, bruising, or very rarely, infection may occur. The researcher's responsibility includes not only minimizing these risks through protocol design but also implementing robust monitoring to detect unanticipated increases in risk that would require re-evaluation of expedited review status.

Special Population Considerations

Expedited research with special populations requires additional safeguards. Research with children must account for developmental stage in assent procedures and risk assessment. The Earlham College guidelines note that online participants should be treated as "temporary workers" and afforded fair treatment including equitable pay and clear rejection criteria when using crowdsourcing platforms [13].

When research involves collection of data from voice, video, or image recordings, special attention must be paid to protecting against re-identification risks. This may include secure storage, encryption, limited access, and destruction timelines. For research involving previously collected materials, researchers must demonstrate appropriate access permissions and maintain privacy protections consistent with original collection contexts.

Figure 2: Expedited Research Workflow with Continuous Risk Assessment. This diagram illustrates the cyclical nature of ethical research conduct, emphasizing ongoing risk evaluation throughout the study timeline.

Expedited review provides an essential pathway for ethical oversight of minimal risk research, balancing thorough protection of human subjects with administrative efficiency. The categorical framework established by OHRP and FDA creates clear boundaries for eligible research while maintaining flexibility for IRB judgment. For researchers conducting studies with minor changes or minimal risk interventions, understanding these categories enables appropriate protocol development and streamlined review processes.

Successful navigation of expedited review requires meticulous attention to risk assessment, robust informed consent processes, and ongoing monitoring to ensure continued eligibility. As research methodologies evolve, particularly in digital and biological domains, researchers must remain vigilant in applying ethical principles within the expedited review framework. Proper implementation of these protocols ensures that minimal risk research can proceed efficiently while maintaining the highest standards of human subject protection.

Distinguishing Between Initial Review and Post-Approval Modifications

Within the framework of human subjects research oversight, Institutional Review Board (IRB) review is a dynamic process that extends from a study's inception to its closure. A critical understanding of this process involves distinguishing between the initial review of a research protocol and the management of post-approval modifications. This distinction is particularly salient within the context of expedited review procedures for minor changes in research, a category defined by federal regulations [14]. The initial review represents the IRB's first comprehensive ethical and scientific evaluation of a research proposal, determining its approvability based on criteria such as risk minimization, equitable subject selection, and informed consent. Conversely, post-approval modifications encompass the ongoing oversight activities after a study has received initial approval, including the review of proposed changes, continuing review at least annually, and the monitoring of adverse events [15]. For research falling under the expedited review category—defined as studies involving no more than minimal risk—the pathways for both initial and continuing review are streamlined, though the regulatory requirements for safeguarding subjects remain equally rigorous [16].

Regulatory Framework and Definitions

The foundation for IRB review is established by federal regulations, primarily from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under 45 CFR Part 46 (the Common Rule) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56 [17]. These regulations authorize expedited review procedures for specific categories of research. According to the FDA, expedited review may be used for "minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized" [14]. This indicates that the expedited mechanism is not solely for initial review but is also the appropriate channel for certain post-approval modifications.

• Expedited Review Scope: The list of categories eligible for expedited review is federally defined and includes research activities that present no more than minimal risk. Examples include:
  • Collection of blood samples via venipuncture from healthy, non-pregnant adults [14].
  • Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means [14] [16].
  • Research involving materials (data, documents, records, or specimens) that have been collected or will be collected solely for nonresearch purposes [14].
  • Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior, or research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, or program evaluation methods [16].
• Minimal Risk Definition: A key determinant for expedited review is that the research poses minimal risk, meaning that "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [16].

Quantitative Comparison: Initial vs. Post-Approval Review

The following tables summarize the core characteristics, review triggers, and outcomes for initial review and post-approval modifications, with a specific focus on the expedited review context.

Table 1: Core Characteristics and Review Triggers

Feature	Initial Review	Post-Approval Modifications
Primary Objective	First-time assessment of a research protocol's ethical and scientific soundness and regulatory compliance [16].	Oversight of changes to an already approved study and ongoing compliance [15].
Review Level Determination	Based on the study's design and risk level (Exempt, Expedited, Full Board) [16].	Typically reviewed at the same level as the initial approval, unless the modification increases the risk level [15].
Common Triggers	Submission of a new research protocol [16].	Any proposed change to the research activities, including protocol amendments, revised consent forms, or new study personnel [15].
Continuing Review Requirement	Establishes the first approval period and the need for subsequent continuing review [15].	Required at least annually for expedited and full-board studies; not required for exempt research [15].

Table 2: Review Outcomes and Reporting Requirements

Item	Initial Review	Post-Approval Modifications
Possible Outcomes	Approval, Require Modifications (to secure approval), Disapproval [17].	Approval of Modification, Require Revisions to the Modification, Disapproval of the Modification [15].
Reporting of Unanticipated Events	Not applicable at this stage.	Investigators must report any adverse events or deviations from the approved protocol that affect participant rights, safety, or welfare [15].
Review Body	Full IRB for greater-than-minimal-risk studies; designated IRB member for expedited studies [16].	Full IRB for modifications that increase risk; designated reviewer for minor, minimal-risk changes (expedited) [15] [14].
Approval Period	For expedited studies under the Revised Common Rule, continuing review periods can be up to five years [15].	The modification is incorporated into the existing approval, which continues until the next continuing review date [15].

Experimental Protocols for IRB Review Procedures

Protocol 1: Determination of Initial Review Level

This protocol outlines the systematic procedure for an investigator or IRB administrator to classify the level of review required for a new research study involving human subjects.

• Methodology:
  • Define the Activity: Determine if the activity constitutes "research." Under the Common Rule, this involves assessing if it is a systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge [16]. For FDA-regulated studies, it is a "clinical investigation" involving a test article and one or more human subjects [16].
  • Identify Human Subjects: Confirm the activity involves "human subjects." This is defined as living individuals from whom an investigator obtains data through intervention or interaction, or whose identifiable private information or biospecimens are used [16].
  • Assess for Exemption: If the research involves no more than minimal risk, evaluate if it fits into one of the eight specific exemption categories outlined in the regulations (e.g., anonymous educational tests, surveys, or research on existing data) [16].
  • Determine Expedited Eligibility: If not exempt, assess if the research involves no more than minimal risk and fits one of the federally defined categories for expedited review [14] [16]. If it does not, the research must undergo Full Board Review [16].

The logical workflow for this determination is illustrated below.

Protocol 2: Submission and Review of a Post-Approval Modification

This protocol details the steps for an investigator to submit, and for an IRB to review, a proposed change to an approved study, specifically focusing on the expedited pathway for minor changes.

• Methodology:
  • Preparation of Modification Package: The investigator prepares a complete modification submission package. This includes a detailed description of the proposed change, a rationale justifying the change, and all updated study documents (e.g., revised protocol, updated informed consent forms, new recruitment materials) [15].
  • Submission via IRB Management System: The investigator submits the complete package through the institution's electronic IRB management system (e.g., Cayuse IRB) [15].
  • IRB Pre-Review and Routing: The IRB office or administrator conducts an administrative pre-review to check for completeness and then routes the submission for review. For modifications that represent only minor changes to previously approved research and do not increase risk, the submission is designated for Expedited Review [15] [14].
  • Designated Member Review: A designated IRB reviewer (or reviewers) conducts the review. The reviewer applies the same regulatory criteria as the full board but has the authority to approve the modification or require revisions directly [16]. It is important to note that research undergoing expedited review cannot be disapproved by a designated reviewer; such action requires review by the full convened IRB [16].
  • Implementation: Upon receipt of formal approval from the IRB, the investigator implements the modification according to the approved specifications and effective date.

The following diagram maps this submission and review workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials for IRB Submissions

Successful navigation of the IRB review process, both initial and post-approval, requires the preparation of specific documents and materials. The following table lists key components of a complete IRB submission package.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Submissions

Item	Function and Description
Research Protocol	The core document detailing the study's background, objectives, methodology, statistical analysis plan, and measures for protecting subject safety and welfare.
Informed Consent Document (ICD)	The legally and ethically required form that provides prospective subjects with all necessary information about the study in a comprehensible manner, allowing them to make a voluntary decision to participate [17].
Investigator's Brochure	For drug or device studies, this comprehensive document summarizes the clinical and nonclinical data on the investigational product, relevant to the study of the product in human subjects.
Recruitment Materials	All materials used to enroll subjects (e.g., flyers, advertisements, social media posts) must be reviewed and approved by the IRB to ensure they are not coercive and do not promise unjustifiable benefits.
Grant Proposal & Scientific Review	Often required to demonstrate scientific merit and alignment between the proposed budget, timeline, and research activities.
Measures/Tools	Data collection instruments such as surveys, interview guides, and case report forms (CRFs) must be submitted for review.
IRB Application Form	The institution-specific form that collects all regulatory and administrative information about the study, its team, and its compliance with various requirements (e.g., conflicts of interest, data security).
Modification Request Form	For post-approval changes, this form specifically describes the nature of, and justification for, the proposed amendment to the approved study [15].
Adverse Event Reports	Documents used to report any unanticipated problems or deviations from the approved protocol that impact subject rights, safety, or welfare to the IRB [15].

Navigating the IRB landscape requires a clear understanding of the distinct yet interconnected phases of initial review and post-approval modifications. For research involving minimal risk, the expedited review pathway offers a streamlined mechanism for both the initial approval and for subsequent minor changes, enhancing efficiency without compromising ethical oversight. By adhering to structured protocols for determining review levels and submitting modifications, researchers can ensure regulatory compliance, maintain the integrity of their research, and uphold the paramount duty of protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects.

Expedited review is a regulatory administrative procedure that allows certain types of research to be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) chairperson or one or more experienced reviewers, rather than requiring review by the full convened IRB [18] [19]. This process is authorized under both the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46.110 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations at 21 CFR 56.110 [20].

The fundamental purpose of this procedure is to provide an efficient review mechanism for research activities that involve no more than minimal risk to human subjects, while maintaining rigorous ethical oversight and protection of human research participants [21]. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, understanding this regulatory framework is essential for navigating the IRB review process efficiently, particularly for minor changes to already approved research protocols.

Table: Scope and Applicability of Expedited Review Regulations

Regulatory Aspect	45 CFR 46.110 (HHS)	21 CFR 56.110 (FDA)
Governing Agency	Department of Health and Human Services	Food and Drug Administration
Primary Scope	Research conducted or supported by HHS [20]	Clinical investigations regulated by FDA [20]
Authority Over IRB Use	Department or agency head [18]	FDA Commissioner [20]
Regulatory Action Wording	"Restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize" [18]	"Restrict, suspend, or terminate" [20]

Regulatory Criteria for Expedited Review

Qualifying Categories of Research

The regulations specify that expedited review may be used for specific categories of research that have been formally identified and published in the Federal Register [18]. The Secretary of HHS maintains and periodically evaluates (at least every 8 years) a list of research categories that may be reviewed through this expedited procedure [18]. This list is available from the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) or any successor office [18].

Research qualifying for expedited review must involve no more than minimal risk, which the regulations define as situations where "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [9].

Table: Research Categories Eligible for Expedited Review

Category	Description	Examples & Limitations
Clinical Studies of Drugs/Devices	Research on marketed drugs or devices used per their labeling [19]	Drugs not requiring IND application; devices not requiring IDE [19]
Biological Specimen Collection	Blood collection through venipuncture or other minimally invasive methods [19]	Volume limits: 550 mL max in 8 weeks for adults ≥110 lbs; lesser amounts for others [19]
Noninvasive Specimen Collection	Prospective collection by noninvasive means [19]	Hair/nail clippings, saliva, plaque, excreta, sweat [19]
Noninvasive Procedures	Data collection using noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice [19]	MRI, ECG, ultrasound, moderate exercise; excludes X-rays [19]
Secondary Data Use	Research involving materials collected for non-research purposes [19]	Medical records, diagnostic specimens [19]
Behavioral Research	Research on individual/group characteristics or behavior using various methodologies [19]	Surveys, interviews, focus groups, program evaluation [19]

Minor Changes to Approved Research

A critical application of expedited review within the context of ongoing research involves the review of minor changes in previously approved research during the period for which approval is authorized [18] [19]. This provision is particularly valuable for drug development professionals who often need to make adjustments to approved protocols without disrupting research timelines.

The regulatory framework permits IRBs to establish written procedures describing the types of minor changes that can be approved through expedited review [22]. This flexibility allows researchers to implement modest protocol adjustments efficiently while maintaining compliance with human subject protection requirements.

Experimental Protocols for Expedited Review Submission

Protocol 1: Initial Submission for Expedited Review

Objective: To secure IRB approval for new research qualifying for expedited review under 45 CFR 46.110 or 21 CFR 56.110.

Materials and Reagents:

• Complete research protocol document
• IRB application forms specific to the institution
• Informed consent documents (unless waiver requested)
• Recruitment materials (advertisements, scripts)
• Data collection instruments (surveys, interview guides)
• Investigator's Brochure (for drug/device studies)
• Documentation of qualifications for research team

Methodology:

• Eligibility Determination: Prior to submission, confirm the research qualifies for expedited review by verifying it meets the criteria for minimal risk and falls within one or more of the established OHRP categories [21] [22].
• Documentation Preparation: Compile all required materials, ensuring the protocol clearly describes how the study meets expedited review criteria, including specific category justification [22].
• IRB Submission: Submit the complete application package through the institution's designated IRB submission system, clearly indicating the request for expedited review and providing justification [23] [21].
• Responsive Communication: Monitor for IRB correspondence and promptly address any questions, modifications, or contingencies requested by the reviewer(s) [21].
• Implementation: Upon receipt of approval letter, commence research activities in strict adherence to the approved protocol [21].

Protocol 2: Submission for Minor Changes to Approved Research

Objective: To obtain IRB approval for minor modifications to previously approved research through expedited review procedures.

Materials and Reagents:

• Amendment application form
• Revised protocol sections (with tracked changes)
• Updated informed consent documents (if applicable)
• Modified recruitment materials (if applicable)
• Justification for changes explaining why they constitute minor modifications

Methodology:

• Change Assessment: Determine if proposed modifications qualify as "minor changes" according to institutional policy and regulatory guidance [19] [22].
• Documentation Preparation: Prepare a detailed summary of all proposed changes with clear justification explaining how they do not increase risk levels or substantially alter research design [22].
• IRB Submission: Submit amendment application through appropriate channels, specifically requesting expedited review for minor changes under 45 CFR 46.110(b)(2) or 21 CFR 56.110 [18] [19].
• Review Interaction: Respond promptly to reviewer inquiries and implement requested modifications to secure approval [23].
• Implementation: Upon approval, implement changes and ensure all research personnel are trained on modifications [21].

Workflow Visualization: Expedited Review Process

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table: Key Documentation and Materials for Expedited Review Submissions

Item	Function & Purpose	Regulatory Considerations
Expedited Review Category Checklist	Tool to verify research fits established OHRP/FDA categories for expedited review [19] [22]	Must reference current Federal Register list; institutional additions inappropriate [22]
Minimal Risk Assessment Tool	Framework for documenting risk level determination [9]	Risk must not exceed ordinary daily life or routine exams [9]
Protocol Deviation/Amendment Log	Tracks changes to approved protocols for minor change submissions [19]	Essential for demonstrating changes are minor during continuing review [19]
Informed Consent Documentation	Consent forms, scripts, information sheets [17]	Required even for expedited review unless specifically altered or waived [22]
IRB Application Forms	Institution-specific forms for expedited review requests [23]	Must include specific permissible categories and justification [22]

Critical Regulatory Considerations

Limitations and Restrictions

Expedited review procedures have important limitations that researchers must recognize. Reviewers conducting expedited reviews may not disapprove research; they can only approve, require modifications, or refer the research to the full IRB for review [18] [19] [22]. Additionally, expedited review is generally not appropriate for research involving prisoners, though if used, OHRP recommends the prisoner representative be one of the designated reviewers [22].

The regulatory agencies maintain authority over the use of expedited review procedures. Under both HHS and FDA regulations, the respective agency heads may restrict, suspend, terminate, or choose not to authorize an institution's or IRB's use of expedited review [18] [20].

Documentation and Compliance Requirements

IRBs using expedited review procedures must maintain specific documentation, including the specific permissible categories justifying the expedited review and documentation of the review action taken [22]. Additionally, IRBs must adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals approved under expedited procedures [18] [19].

For continuing review of research previously approved by the convened IRB, expedited review may be used only when specific conditions are met, such as when the research is closed to enrollment, all interventions are complete, and only long-term follow-up remains active [19].

A Step-by-Step Guide to Preparing and Submitting Minor Changes for Expedited Review

Within the administration of human subjects research, the institutional review board (IRB) expedited review process serves a critical function for research posing no more than minimal risk to participants. A key component of this process is the review of 'minor modifications' to previously approved research [8]. Federal regulations at 45 CFR 46.110 and 21 CFR 56.110 permit certain categories of research to be reviewed through an expedited procedure, which includes review of "minor changes in previously approved research" during the period for which approval is authorized [2] [5]. This application note synthesizes concrete examples from university policies to provide researchers and drug development professionals with a clear, actionable framework for identifying modifications that qualify for expedited review, thereby streamlining study amendments while maintaining rigorous ethical oversight.

Defining Minor vs. Major Modifications

Core Definitions and Distinctions

A minor modification is universally defined across institutions as a change that does not materially affect the risk-benefit balance, participant safety, or scientific integrity of the study [24] [25]. These changes are eligible for expedited review by a designated IRB reviewer rather than the full convened board. In contrast, a major (or substantive) modification may increase participant risk, significantly alter study design, or impact a participant's willingness to continue in the research, thus requiring full board review [26] [24].

The fundamental distinction hinges on whether the change could "increase risk to participants or otherwise alter the IRB's risk/benefit assessment" [26]. As further explained by Advarra, modifications are typically more difficult for the IRB to review than new research because they must consider how changes affect already-enrolled participants, including whether and how to notify them so they can reassess their continued participation [26].

Regulatory Basis for Expedited Review of Minor Changes

Expedited review procedures apply to research activities that (1) present no more than minimal risk to human subjects, and (2) fall within specific categories established by federal regulations [8]. The term "expedited" refers to the review mechanism (by a single designated reviewer rather than full committee), not necessarily the speed of review [1]. The IRB chair or designee reviews minor modifications to determine if they meet the regulatory criteria for expedited review, ensuring that the changes do not increase the risk level beyond minimal [27].

Table 1: Regulatory Foundation for Expedited Review of Minor Modifications

Regulatory Component	Description	Citation
Minimal Risk Requirement	Probability/magnitude of harm not greater than ordinary life/daily routines	[8]
Review Scope	Minor changes to previously approved research	[2]
Review Mechanism	IRB chair, vice chair, or experienced designee	[27] [1]
Authority Limits	Designated reviewers cannot disapprove research; must refer to full board	[2] [1]

Concrete Examples of Minor Modifications

University IRB policies provide extensive concrete examples to guide researchers in identifying changes that typically qualify as minor modifications. These examples collectively illustrate the principle that changes which maintain or reduce existing risk levels generally qualify for expedited review.

Study Procedures and Design Changes

• Blood Draw Adjustments: Decreasing the number or volume of biological sample collections, provided the change does not affect safety evaluations [2]. Changes in blood draw frequency that remain within expedited criteria limits (e.g., within 550 ml per 8 weeks for healthy adults) [24] [5].
• Visit Schedule Modifications: An increase in the number of study visits specifically for enhanced safety monitoring [2] [24]. A decrease in visit frequency that does not compromise safety data collection [2].
• Questionnaire/Survey Revisions: Adding non-sensitive questions or revising current measures within the scope of approved research aims [25].
• Administrative Revisions: Changes to improve statement clarity, correct typographical errors, or update to current templates without altering content or intent [2] [24].

Study Administration and Personnel Changes

• Research Team Updates: Changes in research personnel that do not diminish the team's competence to conduct the research [24] [25]. Adding new investigators or research sites to previously approved research [26] [5].
• Recruitment Adjustments: Adding new recruitment materials or revising existing advertisements following IRB guidelines [25]. Liberalization of participant payment schedules with proper justification [2].
• Enrollment Target Revisions: A minor increase or decrease in participant enrollment (typically <25% change) or a larger increase where the number of participants receiving experimental intervention remains unchanged [24].

Documentation and Consent Changes

• Clarifying Revisions: Resolving discrepancies within IRB review materials regarding subject numbers, research sites, or procedure timing without substantive changes [24].
• Translation Approval: Approval of translated consent or study documents [5].
• Consent Form Updates: Administrative revisions to improve comprehension without altering risk disclosure or study intent [24].

Concrete Examples of Major Modifications

Major modifications necessitate full board review because they potentially increase risk, alter the risk-benefit profile, or could affect a participant's willingness to continue in the study. The following examples drawn from university policies illustrate changes that typically exceed the threshold for expedited review.

Protocol Design and Intervention Changes

• Drug/Intervention Modifications: Increasing the dose or strength of an investigational drug [24]. Changing the dosage form in a way that alters route of administration [2].
• New Cohort Additions: Adding a new drug cohort or new intervention arm [26].
• Risk Profile Changes: Identification of new serious risks (e.g., immune system responses, severe allergic reactions) that might affect the risk-benefit ratio [26] [24].
• Monitoring Procedure Changes: Removal of previously approved safety monitoring procedures [26].

Population and Procedure Changes

• Study Population Expansion: Changing the targeted population to include more vulnerable groups (e.g., children, pregnant women, individuals with renal failure) [24]. Inclusion of populations with mental disabilities requires special reviewer consideration even for expedited review [2].
• High-Risk Procedure Additions: Adding procedures where the risk exceeds minimal risk (e.g., blood draws exceeding expedited criteria volumes, additional radiation exposure) [24].
• Confidentiality Implications: Adding elements that could breach confidentiality (e.g., specimen banking, genetic testing) [24].

Significant Study Parameter Changes

• Enrollment Increases: A substantial increase (>25%) in the number of participants receiving experimental treatment that affects the statistical plan [24].
• Extended Exposure: Increasing the length of time subjects are exposed to experimental aspects of the study [24].
• New Research Objectives: Adding new research objectives or sub-studies that substantially change the scientific aims [26] [25].

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Minor vs. Major Modifications

Modification Category	Minor Change Examples	Major Change Examples
Study Procedures	Decreasing blood volume within limits; Adding non-sensitive survey questions	Increasing drug dose; Adding invasive procedures
Study Population	Narrowing inclusion criteria; Broadening exclusion criteria	Adding children/pregnant women; Including vulnerable populations
Study Design	Adding safety monitoring visits; Minor enrollment adjustments (<25%)	New intervention arms; Changing primary endpoints
Administrative	Personnel changes maintaining team competence; Typographical corrections	Change of Principal Investigator; Adding external collaborators
Risk Profile	Corrections improving clarity	Newly identified serious risks; Safety monitoring removal

Submission Protocol for Minor Modifications

Required Documentation

Researchers submitting modification requests should provide comprehensive documentation to facilitate efficient IRB review. Required materials typically include:

• Modification Request Form: Detailed rationale for each change and assessment of impact on risks/benefits [25].
• Revised Protocol: Tracked changes against the originally approved version [25].
• Updated Consent Documents: Both clean and tracked-change versions if consent changes are needed [24] [25].
• Supporting Materials: Revised recruitment materials, new questionnaires, updated investigator brochures, or other affected documents [2] [25].

IRB Review Workflow

The IRB review process for modifications follows a structured pathway to ensure thorough evaluation while maintaining efficiency for qualifying minor changes.

Investigator Best Practices

• Pre-Submission Assessment: Contact the IRB office prior to submission if uncertain about review type required [24].
• Comprehensive Rationale: Provide detailed justifications for each change, including implications for currently enrolled participants [26].
• Re-consent Planning: Consider whether modifications necessitate re-consent of active participants and propose a notification plan [26].
• Coordinated Submissions: For sponsored research, coordinate with sponsors before submitting site-level changes [25].
• Tracked Changes: Use tracked changes in all revised documents to facilitate reviewer comprehension [25].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Modification Submissions

Document/Resource	Function in Modification Process	Source
Modification Request Form	Details changes and provides rationale for modifications	[25]
Tracked-Changes Protocol	Highlights specific alterations from approved version	[25]
Revised Consent Documents	Clean and marked-up versions for participant notification	[24] [25]
Updated Investigator Brochure	Communicates new safety information to IRB	[2] [26]
Enrollment Status Report	Contextualizes impact on active participants	[26]

Precise identification of minor modifications eligible for expedited review is essential for efficient protocol management in human subjects research. By applying the concrete examples and frameworks provided in this application note, researchers and drug development professionals can more accurately distinguish between minor and major changes, thereby submitting appropriately documented modification requests. This proficiency accelerates IRB review while maintaining rigorous protection of participant rights and welfare, ultimately supporting the ethical advancement of scientific knowledge through well-administered human subjects research.

The expedited review process is a regulatory mechanism that allows an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to review certain categories of research through an accelerated procedure, without convening a full board meeting [8]. This process is designed for research that presents no more than minimal risk to human subjects, meaning that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations [8]. For researchers in drug development and scientific investigation, understanding how to properly prepare and submit a request for expedited review is crucial for efficiently advancing research involving minor changes to previously approved studies.

The expedited review procedure may be used for specific categories of research identified in federal regulations, including: prospective collection of biological specimens through noninvasive means; collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice; research involving materials that have been collected for nonresearch purposes; and collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings [8]. Additionally, certain minor modifications to already approved research may qualify for expedited review [24]. The fundamental purpose of IRB review, including expedited review, is to assure that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects [17].

Determining Eligibility for Expedited Review

Regulatory Criteria and Categories

For research to qualify for expedited review, it must satisfy two fundamental criteria. First, the research activity must present no more than minimal risk to human subjects. Second, the research procedures must fall within one or more of the specific categories outlined in federal regulations [8]. The official list of categories includes nine distinct classifications, with categories one through seven applicable to both initial and continuing review.

Key categories eligible for expedited review include:

• Clinical studies of drugs and medical devices when an Investigational New Drug Application (IND) or Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) is not required, or when the device is used according to its cleared/approved labeling [8].
• Collection of blood samples through specific methods (finger stick, heel stick, ear stick, or venipuncture) with volume and frequency limitations based on subject characteristics [8].
• Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means such as hair and nail clippings, deciduous teeth, excreta, uncannulated saliva, and mucosal cells [8].
• Collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice, excluding radiation-based procedures [8].
• Research involving materials that have been collected, or will be collected solely for nonresearch purposes [8].

Distinguishing Between Minor and Major Modifications

For research involving changes to previously approved studies, the distinction between minor and major modifications is critical in determining eligibility for expedited review. IRBs generally consider minor changes as those that do not increase risk or alter the risk-benefit ratio, while major changes typically increase risk or substantively change the research [24] [26].

Table 1: Examples of Minor vs. Major Modifications to Research Protocols

Minor Modifications (Eligible for Expedited Review)	Major Modifications (Require Full Board Review)
Changes in research personnel that do not affect team competence [24]	Changes that increase the length of time subjects are exposed to experimental aspects [24]
Minor increases/decreases in participant numbers (<25% change) [24]	Increasing dose/strength of an investigational drug [24]
Changes in procedures with minor impact on risk (e.g., blood draws within expedited criteria) [24]	Changing targeted population to include more at-risk groups [24]
Adding questionnaires that don't introduce new sensitive subject matter [24]	Adding procedures where risk is greater than minimal [24]
Updates to contact information or corrective wording [26]	Identifying new serious risks affecting risk-benefit ratio [24]

The final determination on whether a modification qualifies as minor and eligible for expedited review rests with the IRB, which relies on the experience and expertise of its members to evaluate changes within the context of the specific research [26].

Essential Documents for Expedited Review Submission

Core Submission Documents

A successful expedited review request requires careful preparation and submission of specific documents that comprehensively describe the proposed research or modification. While requirements may vary slightly between institutions, the following core documents are typically necessary:

• Completed IRB Application Form: Most institutions provide a standardized application form that must be fully completed with all required information [8].
• Research Protocol: A detailed protocol describing the research methodology, procedures, subject population, and data analysis plans.
• Informed Consent Documents: All consent forms, assent forms, and informational sheets must be submitted, using the current IRB-approved template with any proposed changes clearly highlighted [24].
• Recruitment Materials: All advertisements, flyers, social media posts, scripts, and other materials used to recruit subjects [26].
• Data Collection Instruments: Surveys, questionnaires, interview guides, and case report forms that will be used in the research.
• Investigator Brochure: For drug studies, the current investigator brochure must be provided [26].
• Previous IRB Approvals: For modifications, documentation of previous IRB approvals and correspondence.

Table 2: Essential Document Toolkit for Expedited Review Submissions

Document Category	Specific Documents Required	Purpose and Function
Protocol Documents	Research protocol, scientific rationale, previous approvals (for modifications) [24]	Describes research design, methodology, and justification for changes
Informed Consent Documents	Consent forms, assent forms, information sheets (current template) [24]	Protects subject autonomy and ensures adequate disclosure
Recruitment Materials	Advertisements, emails, flyers, social media content [26]	Ensures appropriate and ethical subject recruitment
Data Collection Tools	Surveys, questionnaires, interview guides, case report forms [28]	Standardizes data collection and ensures methodical approach
Supporting Documents	Investigator brochure, CVs, conflict of interest disclosures [26]	Demonstrates investigator qualifications and manages conflicts

Special Considerations for Modification Requests

When submitting modifications to previously approved research, additional documentation and contextual information are crucial for efficient IRB review. Researchers should provide sufficient detail about the rationale for changes, implications for currently enrolled participants, and plans for notifying subjects of changes when appropriate [26]. The modification application should include all required changes to the protocol, IRB application, consent forms, and other study documentation, regardless of study status [24].

For modifications, researchers must clearly articulate:

• The scientific or therapeutic rationale for the proposed changes [26]
• The impact on currently enrolled participants and how they will be informed of changes [26]
• Any changes to the risk-benefit profile of the research [24]
• Revisions to statistical plans if participant numbers change significantly [24]

The IRB pays particular attention to modifications that identify new risks, increase the frequency or magnitude of previously described risks, decrease expected benefits, or increase participant burden [26]. In such cases, the IRB will evaluate whether participants should be notified and may require re-consent [26].

The Expedited Review Process Workflow

Understanding the end-to-end workflow for expedited review submissions helps researchers navigate the process efficiently and anticipate requirements and timelines. The following diagram illustrates the typical pathway for expedited review requests:

Submission and Review Timelines

Expedited review typically offers significantly faster turnaround times compared to full board review. While full board reviews must adhere to specific submission deadlines (often 7 days prior to convened meetings) and are considered at monthly meetings, expedited reviews can be submitted at any time and are typically reviewed within 3-5 business days after submission [24]. This accelerated timeline allows researchers to implement approved changes more quickly, facilitating more responsive research management.

The actions available to expedited reviewers differ from those of a convened board. Reviewers conducting expedited review may: (1) approve the application as submitted; (2) approve with administrative changes; (3) table the application pending submission of revisions; or (4) refer the application for discussion at a convened meeting [8]. Importantly, expedited reviewers do not have the authority to disapprove research—disapproval is an action that may only be taken by a convened IRB [8].

Common Pitfalls and Best Practices

Frequent Submission Errors

Researchers often encounter delays in the expedited review process due to common submission errors. Awareness of these pitfalls can help streamline the review timeline:

• Incomplete applications: Failure to submit all required documents or complete all sections of application forms [8].
• Insufficient justification: Not providing adequate rationale for how the research qualifies for expedited review [26].
• Inadequate consent documents: Using outdated templates or failing to highlight changes in revised consent forms [24].
• Underestimating risks: Framing modifications as "minor" when they actually increase risk or alter the risk-benefit ratio [24].
• Lack of participant notification plan: For modifications to ongoing research, failing to describe how current participants will be informed of changes [26].

Strategies for Successful Expedited Review Submissions

Researchers can improve the efficiency and success of their expedited review submissions by implementing several best practices:

• Consult with the IRB Early: When uncertain about eligibility for expedited review, contact the IRB office prior to submission for guidance [24].
• Provide Comprehensive Rationale: Clearly explain why the research qualifies for expedited review, referencing specific regulatory categories when possible [8].
• Highlight All Changes: For modifications, explicitly identify and justify all proposed changes to previously approved research [24].
• Address Participant Impact: For ongoing research, describe how modifications affect current participants and the plan for notification or re-consenting [26].
• Use Current Templates: Ensure all documents, especially consent forms, use the most current IRB-approved templates [24].

Advarra, a recognized research compliance organization, emphasizes that "modifications are sometimes more difficult for the IRB to review than a new research study" because of additional considerations regarding currently enrolled participants [26]. They recommend that investigators provide comprehensive context and rationale to facilitate efficient IRB deliberation and "clear, actionable review outcomes" [26].

By thoroughly preparing the essential documents outlined in this toolkit and adhering to best practices for submission, researchers can navigate the expedited review process more efficiently, ultimately accelerating the implementation of minor research changes while maintaining rigorous protection of human subjects.

Within the broader context of expedited review processes for minor changes in research, navigating the Institutional Review Board (IRB) submission pathway is a fundamental researcher competency. Most research involving human participants will require protocol modifications during the course of study conduct [26]. The expedited review mechanism exists specifically for minor changes to previously approved research that do not increase risk to participants or alter the risk-benefit assessment [29] [23]. This application note provides researchers with a detailed, practical workflow for successfully submitting and obtaining approval for minor study modifications through IRBNet, emphasizing the expedited review pathway available for changes constituting no more than minimal risk to human subjects.

Logical Workflow for IRBNet Submission and Review

The following diagram illustrates the complete pathway from identifying a needed change to implementing IRB-approved modifications, highlighting key decision points for expedited review eligibility.

Classification of Study Changes

Before submission, researchers must accurately classify their proposed modifications. The distinction between minor and significant changes determines the review pathway and timeline. The table below outlines common modification types and their typical classification.

Table 1: Classification of Common Study Modifications

Modification Type	Examples	Typical Classification	Review Pathway
Administrative Updates	Updated site contact information, spelling corrections, adding new recruitment locations [26]	Minor	Expedited
Documentation Revisions	Adding new recruitment materials, revising consent form wording for clarity [26]	Minor	Expedited
Procedural Adjustments	Increasing compensation, minor adjustment to survey questions, adding non-invasive specimen collection methods [30]	Minor	Expedited
Significant Protocol Changes	New drug cohort addition, changing dosing schedule, removing safety monitoring procedures [26]	Major	Full Board
Risk Profile Alterations	Newly identified risks impacting willingness to participate, increased frequency/magnitude of previously described risks [26]	Major	Full Board

Experimental Protocol: IRBNet Submission Methodology

Pre-Submission Protocol

Purpose: To ensure complete, accurate application preparation before IRBNet submission to minimize review delays.

Materials:

• IRBNet login credentials
• Current approved protocol and consent documents
• Tracked changes version of modified documents
• Modification description template

Procedure:

• Change Assessment: Determine if changes qualify as minor using Table 1 criteria. Consult IRB policies if uncertain [26].
• Document Preparation: Create clean and marked-up versions of all modified documents. For consent changes, use institutional templates when available [30].
• Rationale Development: Write detailed justification explaining:
  • Purpose of each change
  • Impact on subject risk or burden
  • Plan for communicating changes to currently enrolled participants
• Supporting Materials Collection: Gather any new or revised instruments, advertisements, or investigator brochures.
• Internal Review: Conduct team review to ensure consistency across all modified documents.

IRBNet Submission Protocol

Purpose: To correctly submit modification package through IRBNet electronic system.

Materials:

• Complete modification package
• IRBNet submission checklist

Procedure:

• Project Access: Log into IRBNet and select the approved study requiring modification.
• Submission Initiation: Click "Create New Package" and select "Modification" as package type.
• Document Upload:
  • Upload marked-up and clean versions of modified documents
  • Include modification description with rationale
  • Attach updated protocol version with revision track
• Form Completion: Complete all required fields in modification submission form:
  • Specify exact locations of all changes
  • Justify each modification
  • Detail plan for informing current participants
• Submission Routing: Ensure appropriate departmental and co-investigator reviews are completed.
• Final Submission: digitally sign and submit package through IRBNet.

Quantitative Analysis of IRB Review Timelines

Understanding typical review timeframes enables realistic study planning. The following table synthesizes median turnaround times for various review types based on institutional data.

Table 2: Comparative IRB Review Timelines (in Business Days)

Review Type	Median Total Turnaround	IRB Processing Time	PI Response Time
Expedited Initial Review	21 days [29]	8 days [29]	13 days [29]
Expedited Continuing Review	10 days [29]	2 days [29]	8 days [29]
Full Board Initial Review	60 days [29]	29 days [29]	31 days [29]
Full Board Continuing Review	27 days [29]	7 days [29]	20 days [29]
Exempt Review	13 days [29]	7 days [29]	6 days [29]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials for IRB Submissions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Successful IRBNet Submissions

Item	Function	Application Notes
Institutional Consent Templates	Ensure format and regulatory compliance	Use institution-specific templates for different review types (e.g., expedited, regular) [30]
Modification Description Template	Standardize change justifications	Include: rationale, risk impact, participant communication plan [26]
Track Changes Documentation	Clearly identify all modifications	Provide both marked-up and clean versions of all modified documents [26]
Readability Assessment Tool	Verify consent form comprehension level	Use Microsoft Readability Statistics tool for consent documents [30]
IRB Registration Documentation	Confirm IRB authority to review	Ensure IRB registration with HHS is current for FDA-regulated studies [17]
Expedited Review Category Guide	Determine eligibility for expedited review	Reference OHRP Expedited Review Categories for minimal risk research [23]

Post-Submission Protocol: Navigating IRB Feedback

Contingency Response Protocol

Purpose: To efficiently address IRB requests for additional information or revisions.

Materials:

• IRB contingency memo
• Original submission documents
• Tracked changes showing revisions

Procedure:

• Contingency Analysis: Carefully review all IRB requests upon receipt of contingency memo [29].
• Team Consultation: Discuss requested changes with study team and sponsors if applicable.
• Document Revision: Make all requested modifications using tracked changes.
• Response Preparation: Create point-by-point response addressing each concern.
• Resubmission: Upload revised documents and response letter through IRBNet.
• Follow-up: Monitor submission status and respond promptly to additional queries.

Approval Implementation Protocol

Purpose: To properly implement IRB-approved changes and maintain regulatory compliance.

Materials:

• IRB approval letter
• Final approved documents
• Participant communication materials

Procedure:

• Document Verification: Confirm receipt of final approval letter and approved document versions [29].
• Team Notification: Distribute approved documents to all study personnel.
• Participant Communication: Implement plan for informing current participants of changes if required [26].
• Document Archiving: File approval documents in regulatory binder.
• Implementation Tracking: Document date when changes were implemented in study operations.

Discussion: Strategic Approaches to Expedited Review

The expedited review pathway for minor modifications represents a significant efficiency opportunity for research teams. Strategic approach to modification classification and submission package preparation directly impacts review timeline. Researchers should note that most modifications to previously approved research will be handled through expedited review regardless of whether the original application required full board review [29]. However, modifications that substantially change study design or increase risk to subjects may require convening of the full IRB [29].

Critical success factors for efficient review include providing comprehensive context for changes—specifically noting implications for enrolled participants—and clear plans for participant notification when warranted [26]. Changes identifying new risks, decreasing anticipated benefits, or increasing participant burden typically require participant re-consent or formal notification [26]. By thoroughly addressing these considerations in the initial submission, researchers can minimize review cycles and maintain study momentum while ensuring ongoing protection of human subjects.

Successfully navigating the Institutional Review Board (IRB) modification process requires researchers to master two key skills: providing a clear justification for the proposed change and convincingly demonstrating that it introduces no more than minimal risk to participants. The FDA defines an IRB as an appropriately constituted group designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects, with the authority to approve, require modifications to, or disapprove research [17]. For changes to previously approved research, expedited review is a regulatory mechanism that allows designated IRB reviewers to approve certain categories of minor changes without requiring a full board meeting [14].

The expedited review pathway is available for specific categories of research activities that present no more than minimal risk to human subjects and involve only procedures listed in one or more of the categories established by regulatory bodies [31]. Federal regulations define minimal risk as "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [32]. This article provides researchers with a structured framework for preparing modification requests that effectively address IRB concerns, facilitating a more efficient review process.

Understanding Minor vs. Major Modifications

Regulatory Distinctions

A fundamental requirement for expedited review is that the proposed change must qualify as a minor modification. IRBs classify modifications based on the potential impact on participant risk and study integrity:

Table: Classification of Protocol Modifications

Modification Type	Risk/Benefit Impact	Review Pathway	Key Characteristics
Minor Modification	Does not significantly affect risk assessment or substantially change study aims/design [33] [2]	Expedited Review [24]	Narrowing inclusion criteria; broadening exclusion criteria; minor administrative changes
Major Modification	Significantly affects risk/benefit ratio or substantially changes study aims/design [33]	Full Board Review [24]	Increasing drug dosage; adding vulnerable populations; changes affecting statistical plan

Common Examples of Minor Modifications

• Personnel Changes: Adding or removing research staff when the change does not alter the team's competence to conduct the research [24]
• Recruitment Adjustments: Changes to recruitment materials, increasing or decreasing proposed enrollment numbers (typically <25% change) with statistical justification [24] [2]
• Procedural Refinements: Alterations to study activity duration or procedure with minor impact on risks [33]
• Documentation Improvements: Changes to improve clarity, correct typographical errors, or update to current templates without altering content or intent [24] [2]
• Compensation Adjustments: Minimal changes in remuneration or liberalization of payment schedule with proper justification [33] [2]
• Multi-site Changes: The addition or removal of study sites that do not affect overall risk profile [2]

Quantitative Frameworks for Demonstrating Minimal Risk

Blood Draw Limits Within Expedited Categories

Regulations provide specific quantitative thresholds that automatically qualify certain procedures as minimal risk. The most clearly defined category involves blood collection, which has precise volume and frequency limits:

Table: FDA Blood Draw Limits for Expedited Review [14] [31]

Participant Population	Maximum Volume in 8 Weeks	Maximum Frequency	Collection Methods
Healthy, non-pregnant adults (weighing ≥110 lbs)	550 mL	2 times per week	Finger stick, heel stick, ear stick, venipuncture
Other adults and children	Lesser of 50 mL or 3 mL per kg	2 times per week	Finger stick, heel stick, ear stick, venipuncture

When proposing modifications involving biological specimens, researchers should reference Category 3 of the expedited review list, which covers "prospective collection of biological specimens for research purposes by noninvasive means" [31]. This includes hair and nail clippings, deciduous teeth at time of extraction, excreta and external secretions, uncannulated saliva, and other specifically listed procedures [31].

Noninvasive Procedures and Data Collection

Category 4 encompasses "data collection through noninvasive procedures (not involving general anesthesia or sedation) routinely employed in clinical practice" [31]. This includes:

• Physical sensors applied to the surface of the body
• Imaging procedures including MRI, fMRI, ultrasound, and echocardiography
• Physiological measurements including electrocardiography, electroencephalography, thermography
• Functional assessments including moderate exercise, muscular strength testing, body composition assessment

Any modification involving medical devices must utilize devices that are cleared/approved for marketing and being used in accordance with their cleared/approved labeling [31].

Protocol: Strategic Justification of Modifications

Comprehensive Modification Assessment Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the systematic approach researchers should employ when preparing and justifying a modification request:

Risk Assessment Methodology

When demonstrating minimal risk, researchers should employ a systematic approach that addresses both physical and non-physical risks:

For each risk domain, researchers must specifically address how their modification maintains protections. For privacy and confidentiality risks, IRBs must consider "whether identification of the subjects or their responses would reasonably place them at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, insurability, reputation, or be stigmatizing" unless reasonable protections are implemented [14].

Application Notes: Implementation Framework

Documentation and Submission Strategies

• Comprehensive Change Description: Provide a clear, concise summary of what is being changed and why, explicitly stating how the modification maintains the study's minimal risk status [34]
• Regulatory Category Alignment: Identify the specific expedited review category that applies to the modification using the standardized numbering system (e.g., "Category 3: Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means") [31]
• Tracked Changes Documentation: Submit clean and marked-up versions of all modified documents, including protocols, consent forms, and recruitment materials [34]
• Cross-Document Consistency: Ensure changes are consistently reflected across all study documents; for example, a change in the number of participants described in the protocol must also be updated in the consent document if mentioned there [34]
• Statistical Justification: Include statistical rationale for changes in sample size, particularly when increasing or decreasing enrollment numbers [24] [2]

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

• Incomplete Submissions: Multiple changes should be bundled into a single modification submission rather than submitted separately, as only one modification may be under review at any time (except for personnel changes) [34]
• Overlooking Document Interdependencies: Remember that changes to one document often affect others; a change in study title requires updates to both the protocol and consent forms [34]
• Underestimating Non-Medical Risks: Focus not only on physical risks but also adequately address potential psychosocial, legal, and economic risks that IRBs must consider [14]
• Inadequate Rationale for Risk Increases: Even minor increases in risk require thorough justification; for example, increasing the frequency of blood draws must remain within the expedited criteria limits [24]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Documentation

Table: Essential Materials for Modification Requests

Document/Tool	Function	Regulatory Reference
Revised Protocol (with tracked changes)	Clearly displays all proposed modifications in context of existing protocol	IRB institutional requirements [34]
Summary of Changes	Provides narrative justification for each change and explains scientific rationale	IRB institutional requirements [34]
Updated Consent/Assent Documents	Ensures participants receive accurate information about modified procedures	21 CFR 50.20 [17] [14]
Revised Recruitment Materials	Maintains consistency between study procedures and participant communications	IRB institutional requirements [2] [34]
Statistical Justification	Supports changes to sample size or study design with methodological rationale	IRB institutional requirements [24]
Updated Investigator Brochure	Communicates new safety information for drug/device studies	21 CFR 312 [31]

Effectively communicating with the IRB regarding protocol modifications requires a systematic approach that aligns with regulatory frameworks. By properly classifying changes as minor modifications, referencing specific expedited review categories, providing quantitative justifications within established limits, and thoroughly documenting all changes, researchers can facilitate efficient IRB review while maintaining compliance with human subject protection requirements. The methodologies outlined in this article provide researchers with a standardized framework for preparing modification requests that clearly demonstrate maintained minimal risk status, ultimately accelerating the implementation of scientifically valuable protocol improvements.

Common Submission Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them for a Smooth Review Process

For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, navigating the Institutional Review Board (IRB) process is a critical step in ensuring ethical and compliant human subjects research. The expedited review pathway is designed for specific categories of research, including minor changes to already approved studies, that present no more than minimal risk to participants [21]. This application note outlines the most common submission pitfalls encountered during this process and provides detailed, actionable protocols to avoid them, facilitating a smoother and more efficient IRB review. A well-prepared submission not only demonstrates a researcher's commitment to ethical rigor but also significantly reduces the time to approval, which can be delayed by an average of 8 to 30 days due to easily preventable errors [35]. By focusing on the context of expedited reviews for minor changes, this guide empowers researchers to prepare precise and complete applications.

Common Submission Pitfalls: Identification and Analysis

Understanding common errors is the first step toward avoiding them. The following pitfalls are frequently cited by IRB offices and are a major source of delay. The table below summarizes these key pitfalls and their impacts.

Table: Common IRB Submission Pitfalls and Consequences

Pitfall Category	Specific Example	Typical Consequence
Incomplete Submission [36] [35]	Missing consent forms, recruitment scripts, or survey instruments.	Application cannot undergo a thorough pre-review; returned to researcher, causing significant delays.
Document Inconsistencies [36] [35]	Consent form mentions a 15-minute survey, while the protocol describes a 30-minute interview.	IRB must resolve contradictions; requires formal modification and re-review.
Flawed Consent Documentation [36] [37]	Use of an outdated template, incorrect reading level, or missing required elements.	Consent form cannot be approved; requires resubmission and another review cycle.
Insufficient Protocol Detail [35]	Local protocol lacks specific procedures for data collection or participant interaction.	IRB cannot make required risk determinations; application returned for corrections.
Training & Credentialing Issues [36] [35]	Principal Investigator or co-investigators have expired CITI training.	Application will not be placed in the review queue until all credentials are current.

The logical relationship between these pitfalls and the subsequent IRB workflow challenges can be visualized as a flowchart. The following diagram maps the decision path an IRB application takes and where these common pitfalls create bottlenecks.

Experimental Protocols for a Flawless Submission

Protocol: Comprehensive Pre-Submission Checklist

A meticulous pre-submission review is the most effective methodology for preventing common errors. This protocol should be executed after all application documents are drafted but before final submission.

• Objective: To ensure the IRB application package is complete, internally consistent, and compliant with all regulatory and institutional requirements.
• Materials: Draft IRB application form, research protocol, informed consent document(s), recruitment materials, all data collection instruments (e.g., surveys, interview guides), and CVs for all key personnel.
• Procedure:
  • Cross-Verification for Consistency: Create a matrix to verify key data points across all documents. Check that the following elements are identical in the application, protocol, and consent form: number of participants, time commitment for participants, compensation amount, and all procedural descriptions [35].
  • Consent Form Audit: Use the institution's most recent IRB-approved template. Systematically check for all required elements of informed consent, as outlined in 21 CFR 50.25 and 45 CFR 46.116 [36] [37]. Validate the reading level is at or below 8th grade using tools like the Hemingway Editor [37].
  • Training and Credential Confirmation: The Principal Investigator must verify in the electronic system (e.g., Cayuse) that all listed study personnel have current, valid training certifications (e.g., CITI "Group 2 Social Behavioral" or "Group 1 Biomedical" training completed within the last three years) [36] [35].
  • Data Management Plan Scrutiny: Detail every step of data handling. The description should be so precise that another researcher could independently execute it. Specify how data anonymity/confidentiality will be maintained, where physical and electronic data will be stored, who will have access, and the method and timeline for data destruction [38] [37].
• Validation: Have a colleague not involved in the application draft perform an independent review against this checklist. This helps identify assumptions and omissions the primary researcher may overlook.

Protocol: Managing Modifications for Minor Changes

For research under an expedited review category, managing modifications is a frequent task. This protocol ensures that requests for minor changes are submitted correctly.

• Objective: To obtain prospective IRB approval for changes to an approved study without introducing inconsistencies or omissions.
• Materials: The most recent IRB-approved protocol, consent form, and other study documents; a clear description of the proposed changes.
• Procedure:
  • Impact Assessment: For each proposed change, assess its impact on every other part of the research protocol and associated documents. A change in procedure often necessitates updates to the consent form, recruitment materials, and data management plan [35].
  • Document Version Control: Label all revised documents with an updated version number and date. File names should clearly include the document title, version number, and date (e.g., "InformedConsentv3_2025-11-29.docx") [35].
  • Complete Package Submission: When submitting the modification in the IRB system, ensure the package includes all documents touched by the change, even if the revisions are minor. Submit the updated local protocol alongside the modification form [35].
  • Leverage Printer-Friendly Records: To ensure consistency with the last approved application, generate a "printer-friendly version" of the approved project from the IRB system. Use this document as a baseline to ensure changes are accurately and completely incorporated into the modification form [39].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

In the context of IRB submissions, "research reagents" are the essential documents and training that constitute a complete application. The following table details these critical components and their functions.

Table: Essential Reagents for IRB Submissions

Tool	Function	Key Specifications
Current Consent Template [36]	Provides the regulatory and institutional framework for creating a legally and ethically compliant consent document.	Must be the institution's most recent version; includes all required elements of consent; uses plain language at an 8th-grade reading level [37].
Human Subjects Training [36] [35]	Certifies that research personnel understand the ethical principles and regulatory requirements for conducting human subjects research.	CITI "Group 1 Biomedical" or "Group 2 Social Behavioral" training course, completed or refreshed within the last 3 years.
Local Protocol Checklist [35]	Guides the researcher in creating a sufficiently detailed study protocol that allows the IRB to make necessary risk determinations.	Ensures the protocol contains specific details on procedures, recruitment, consent process, and data management for the local context.
Data Security Plan [38]	Describes provisions to protect participant privacy and maintain data confidentiality.	Specifies password protection, encryption, secure storage (locked cabinet/secure server), data de-identification procedures, and access controls.
Recruitment Materials [38]	All advertisements, emails, flyers, and scripts used to recruit potential participants.	Must be consistent with the protocol; include IRB approval stamp and contact information; avoid coercive language.

A successful IRB expedited review for minor changes hinges on precision, consistency, and proactive planning. By integrating the detailed protocols and tools outlined in this application note—the pre-submission checklist, the modification management procedure, and the essential reagent toolkit—researchers can systematically avoid the common pitfalls that derail the review process. Adherence to these methodologies will lead to a more efficient, seamless interaction with the IRB, accelerating the initiation of valuable research.

Navigating Common Hurdles and Best Practices for Efficient Expedited Reviews

Receiving a revision request from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a common step in the research approval process, particularly for studies undergoing expedited review for minor changes. An effective response strategy is crucial for maintaining research momentum and ensuring the protection of human subjects. This guide provides researchers with a systematic approach to addressing IRB feedback efficiently, framed within the regulatory context of IRB expedited review for minor changes to research.

Understanding the Expedited Review Context for Minor Changes

Expedited review is a regulatory provision that allows certain categories of research to be reviewed by the IRB chair or a designated reviewer rather than the full convened board. To qualify, research must involve no more than minimal risk to subjects and fall into one or more specific categories [8]. The term "minimal risk" means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations [9].

Minor changes to previously approved research often qualify for expedited review [2]. Federal regulations do not provide a singular definition for "minor" changes, but IRBs generally consider modifications that do not materially affect the risk-benefit assessment or substantially change the study's specific aims [26]. Understanding this context helps researchers anticipate the level of scrutiny their modifications will receive.

Table: Common Categories of Research Eligible for Expedited Review

Category Number	Description of Research Activity	Applicability
1	Clinical studies of drugs and medical devices when an IND or IDE is not required	Initial & continuing review
2	Collection of blood samples by specific methods within defined volume limits	Initial & continuing review
3	Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means	Initial & continuing review
4	Collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice	Initial & continuing review
5	Research involving materials collected for nonresearch purposes	Initial & continuing review
6	Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings	Initial & continuing review
7	Research on individual/group characteristics or behavior using specific methodologies	Initial & continuing review
8	Continuing review of research under specific conditions	Continuing review only

Strategic Response Protocol for IRB-Requested Revisions

Phase 1: Comprehensive Analysis of Feedback

Begin by carefully analyzing all IRB comments to distinguish between mandatory revisions (required for approval) and advisory suggestions (recommendations for improvement). Create a numbered list of every concern raised, noting specific references to protocol sections, consent documents, or recruitment materials. This systematic approach ensures no feedback is overlooked.

Consult the IRB's written policies and procedures to understand regulatory requirements, especially regarding minor modifications to approved research [2]. If any comment is unclear, contact the IRB for clarification rather than making assumptions, as misinterpretation can lead to further delays.

Phase 2: Development of the Revision Plan

For each item requiring revision, document the specific change made and provide a scientific or ethical justification for your approach. When making changes to the protocol or consent documents, use tracked changes or highlight modifications to facilitate the re-review process.

If you disagree with any IRB suggestion, prepare a evidence-based rationale supported by regulatory references, scientific literature, or previous IRB approvals of similar approaches. The FDA notes that IRB reviewers bring diverse expertise, and their primary concern is subject protection [17].

Phase 3: Submission and Follow-up Procedures

Compile a complete response package including: the point-by-point response letter, revised protocol documents with changes highlighted, clean copies of all documents, and any additional materials requested by the IRB. Submit according to the IRB's specified timeline and procedure [40].

After submission, monitor the approval status regularly. Some IRBs provide estimated timelines for expedited re-review—typically faster than full board review but still requiring careful assessment [40].

Documentation and Materials for Revision Responses

Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Response Protocols

Table: Essential Documentation for IRB Revision Responses

Document Category	Specific Components	Function and Importance
Response Letter	Point-by-point addressing of each IRB concern; Rationale for changes; Reference to supporting documents	Primary communication tool that demonstrates comprehensive addressing of issues
Revised Protocol	Tracked-changes version; Clean final version; Summary of modifications	Ensures transparency in what has been altered from previously approved materials
Informed Consent Documents	Revised consent forms with changes highlighted; Updated consent process description	Critical for subject protection - must contain all required elements [17]
Recruitment Materials	Modified advertisements; Updated scripts; Revised screening procedures	Ensures potential subjects receive accurate information about the study
Supporting Documentation	Updated Investigator's Brochure; New literature citations; Revised data collection tools	Provides scientific justification for changes and demonstrates thoroughness

Regulatory Framework and Ethical Considerations

The FDA regulations acknowledge that investigators may serve as IRB members but prohibit them from participating in the review of their own studies [17]. This understanding helps researchers appreciate the need for independent assessment of their work.

For modifications to previously approved research, the IRB evaluates whether changes are minor or significant, with this determination guiding the review pathway [26]. Understanding this distinction helps researchers anticipate the scope of review their modifications will require.

The fundamental purpose of IRB review of informed consent is to assure that the rights and welfare of subjects are protected, not merely to protect the institution [17]. This ethical foundation should guide all revisions to consent processes and documents.

Advanced Scenarios and Special Considerations

Handling Complex Revision Requests

When revisions involve new risks or changes that might affect a subject's willingness to continue participating, researchers should develop a plan for notifying current participants [26]. This may include re-consent procedures or notification letters explaining changes.

If the IRB indicates that the research no longer qualifies for expedited review, researchers should seek clarification on the specific concerns that led to this determination and prepare materials for full board review [2].

For revisions involving vulnerable populations (e.g., children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity), additional protections and justifications are typically required [9]. Research with prisoners cannot be reviewed via expedited procedures [8].

Responding effectively to IRB revision requests requires a systematic approach that addresses regulatory requirements while advancing research objectives. By understanding the expedited review framework for minor changes, preparing thorough documentation, and maintaining constructive communication with the IRB, researchers can navigate the revision process efficiently. This strategy not only facilitates protocol approval but also strengthens research design and enhances human subject protections—aligning with the shared commitment of researchers and IRBs to ethical scientific advancement.

The expedited review procedure is a regulatory mechanism designed to efficiently evaluate minor changes to previously approved research and new studies that pose no more than minimal risk to human subjects [41] [23]. This review pathway, conducted by a designated IRB member or committee rather than the fully convened board, represents a significant efficiency for the research enterprise. However, the expedited pathway has clearly defined boundaries. When a submission exceeds these boundaries, the IRB may issue a "defer to full board" decision, requiring a more comprehensive review process.

Understanding the triggers for this transition and the subsequent procedural requirements is crucial for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to navigate the IRB landscape efficiently. This application note delineates the specific scenarios that precipitate a deferral to full board review and provides a structured protocol for responding to such determinations, framed within the context of a broader thesis on optimizing the expedited review process for minor changes in research.

The operational impact of a deferral decision is substantial, significantly extending the approval timeline. The table below summarizes comparative turnaround times for different IRB review pathways, illustrating the temporal implications of a deferral.

Table 1: Comparative IRB Review Turnaround Times

Review Type	Typical Turnaround Time	Key Characteristics
Exempt Review	< 1 week [23]	Minimal risk research fitting specific exemption categories [23]
Expedited Review	2 – 4 weeks [23]	Minimal risk research not fitting exemption categories; minor changes to approved research [23]
Full Board Review	4 – 8 weeks [23]	Research involving more than minimal risk; does not qualify for expedited review [23]

Key Reasons for Deferral from Expedited to Full Board Review

The transition from expedited to full board review is typically precipitated by specific protocol characteristics or changes that alter the risk-benefit assessment. The following experimental protocol outlines the major categories analyzed.

Experimental Protocol: Analysis of Deferral Triggers

Objective: To identify, categorize, and characterize the primary factors that trigger an IRB's decision to defer an expedited review to a full board review.

Methodology:

• Regulatory Analysis: Scrutinize federal regulations (45 CFR 46.110, 45 CFR 46.111) and institutional policies from academic and medical research centers to define the boundaries of expedited review [41] [23].
• Case Categorization: Analyze documented case studies and IRB guidance documents to classify common deferral scenarios into discrete, actionable categories.
• Risk-Benefit Assessment Modeling: Apply a standardized framework to evaluate how specific protocol modifications or initial design elements alter the risk profile, pushing it beyond the "minimal risk" threshold.

Results and Interpretations: The analysis identified five primary categories of deferral triggers, which are synthesized into the following logical workflow. This diagram maps the decision pathway an IRB follows when evaluating whether a submission qualifies for expedited review or requires full board scrutiny.

Diagram: IRB Deferral Decision Pathway

The nodes in this pathway correspond to the following deferral triggers, which constitute critical considerations for research protocol design:

• Introduction of More Than Minimal Risk: Expedited review is strictly reserved for research presenting no greater than minimal risk to participants [23]. Proposals that introduce or reveal risks beyond those encountered in daily life or routine examinations necessitate full board review [41]. Examples include: adding invasive procedures (e.g., biopsies), introducing sensitive survey questions that increase psychological risk, or altering data collection plans in ways that raise substantial confidentiality or data breach concerns [41].

• Involvement of Vulnerable Populations: Research that expands its scope to include populations designated as vulnerable by federal regulations (e.g., children, prisoners, individuals with cognitive impairments) often requires the enhanced protections of a full board review [41] [42]. These groups are afforded extra safeguards under specific subparts of 45 CFR 46, and the ethical complexities involved typically demand the collective expertise of the convened board [41].

• Significant Protocol Changes: While expedited review can approve minor modifications to previously approved research, changes deemed "significant" or "more than minor" will be deferred to the full board [26]. The distinction is often contextual, but examples include: a substantial change in participant population (e.g., from adults to adolescents), a major alteration to the dosing schedule in a clinical trial, or the addition of a new research objective that changes the study's fundamental scope [41] [26].

• Adverse Events or Unanticipated Problems: The occurrence of serious adverse events, unanticipated problems involving risks to participants, or other serious incidents during the conduct of research is a major trigger for re-evaluation by the full board [41] [26]. Examples include unexpected side effects not identified in the initial proposal or breaches of confidentiality that could cause harm to participants [41].

• Complex Ethical or Legal Concerns: Proposals that raise novel or complex ethical dilemmas, such as issues around consent forms for subjects with diminished capacity, or legal questions pertaining to international data privacy laws, often benefit from the diverse expertise of a convened board [41] [42]. Research involving sensitive topics like illegal behaviors or genetic analyses may also be routed for full review [23].

Researcher Protocol: Responding to a Deferral Decision

A deferral decision is not a disapproval but a procedural redirect. The following structured protocol details the required steps upon notification.

Experimental Protocol: Post-Deferral Response and Resubmission

Objective: To establish a standardized operational procedure for efficiently and effectively addressing an IRB's deferral decision, with the goal of securing full board approval.

Methodology:

• Notification Analysis: Upon receipt of the official deferral letter from the IRB, the research team must conduct a detailed analysis of the stated reasons. The letter will specify whether the decision is an "Action Deferred" (requiring more information for approval) or an "Approved with Contingencies" (requiring specific modifications) [23] [42].
• Stakeholder Consultation: Convene a meeting with the principal investigator, co-investigators, research coordinator, and, if applicable, the faculty advisor for student researchers. The goal is to dissect the IRB's feedback and formulate a unified response strategy.
• Revision and Documentation: Systematically address every concern and requested modification outlined in the deferral letter. All revisions to the protocol, informed consent documents, and other study materials must be meticulously documented.
• Rebuttal and Resubmission: Prepare a formal point-by-point response letter. For each item raised by the IRB, the response should clearly state the action taken, cite the exact location of the change in the revised documents (e.g., "page 3, section 5"), and provide a scientific or ethical rationale for the revision.
• Preparation for Board Engagement: In some cases, the IRB may invite the investigator to attend the full board meeting to answer questions directly [23]. Prepare a concise presentation (5-10 minutes) summarizing the protocol changes and emphasizing how the revisions adequately address all raised concerns.

Results and Interpretations: Adherence to this protocol ensures a comprehensive and professional response, which facilitates a more efficient re-review by the full board. The "point-by-point" response format is the industry standard and demonstrates respect for the IRB's oversight role. Meticulous attention to the IRB's feedback and clear documentation are the most significant factors in successfully navigating the full board review process after a deferral.

Preparing a robust IRB submission, particularly one that may face full board scrutiny, requires specific resources. The table below details key materials and their functions in supporting protocol development and regulatory compliance.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Protocol Development

Tool/Resource	Function & Application	Regulatory Rationale
Protocol Template	Provides a structured format for detailing study objectives, design, methodology, and statistical considerations [42].	Ensures all regulatory-required elements for risk assessment are addressed [23].
Informed Consent Form (ICF) Template	Standardizes the presentation of information to potential subjects, ensuring all required elements of informed consent are included [43].	Mandated by FDA regulations (21 CFR 50.25) and HHS regulations (45 CFR 46.116) to protect subject autonomy [17].
CITI Training Certification	Provides standardized online education on the ethical principles and regulatory requirements for conducting human subjects research [43].	Fulfills institutional and federal mandates for investigator and staff training in human subjects protections [43].
Readability Statistics Tool	Assesses the grade level of consent forms and participant-facing documents [43].	Ensures comprehension by a broader population, aligning with the ethical principle of justice and regulatory requirements for understandable language [43].
Amendment/Modification Form	Formal mechanism for requesting and documenting changes to an approved study protocol [26] [43].	Required by FDA and HHS regulations; any change must be IRB-approved prior to implementation (unless to eliminate an immediate hazard) [26].

Navigating a "defer to full board" decision requires a methodical understanding of both its triggers and the subsequent procedural requirements. By preemptively considering factors that elevate risk, involve vulnerable populations, or constitute significant changes, researchers can better position their submissions within the expedited review pathway. When a deferral occurs, a systematic response protocol—centered on a thorough analysis of the IRB's concerns, comprehensive protocol revisions, and a meticulous point-by-point rebuttal—is critical for achieving timely approval. Ultimately, this process, while potentially lengthier, serves the fundamental goal of human research protection: to safeguard the rights and welfare of research participants through rigorous, collaborative oversight.

For researchers and drug development professionals, maintaining compliance in long-term and non-traditional study designs presents unique challenges. The framework of IRB expedited review for minor changes provides a critical foundation for implementing proactive, continuous compliance strategies, moving beyond reactive annual check-ins. This approach is particularly vital for managing studies that lack conventional expiration dates—such as those involving long-term biospecimen repositories, registry data, or real-world evidence platforms—where traditional, time-bound approval cycles are insufficient.

Regulatory guidance mandates that IRBs must review and approve any modification to research activities prior to implementation, with exceptions only for changes necessary to eliminate immediate hazards to subjects [26]. This procedural requirement establishes a framework where proactive compliance is not merely advisory but structurally integral to lawful research conduct. By leveraging expedited review pathways for minor modifications, researchers can embed compliance into the continuous research workflow, transforming it from a periodic obligation into an operational asset.

Application Note: Implementing a Proactive Annual Review System

Core Components of an Effective Annual Review

A proactive annual review system shifts compliance from a document-focused, reactive exercise to a process-oriented, continuous quality framework. This system requires integration of scheduled assessments, cross-functional collaboration, and technology-enabled monitoring to maintain persistent compliance readiness beyond traditional expiration date cycles.

Table: Essential Components of a Proactive Annual Review System

Component	Function	Implementation Example
Continuous Monitoring	Identifies compliance gaps in real-time	Automated tracking of protocol deviations; quarterly data integrity checks
Scheduled Assessments	Ensures regular review intervals	Calendar-driven 10-month interim reviews (preceding annual deadline)
Cross-functional Collaboration	Breaks down departmental silos	Regular compliance checkpoints with research, IT, and compliance staff [44]
Documentation Trail	Provides evidence of good faith efforts	Centralized repository for all compliance decisions and rationales [45]
Technology Integration	Automates validation and reporting	Electronic systems with built-in edit checks and alert functionalities [44]

Quantitative Framework for Annual Review Intervals

Establishing a data-driven schedule for compliance activities ensures consistent oversight without creating unnecessary operational burden. The following metrics provide evidence-based intervals for key review activities:

Table: Evidence-Based Compliance Review Intervals

Review Activity	Recommended Frequency	Evidence Base
Internal Protocol Compliance Audit	Quarterly	35% of organizations conduct internal audits annually; 21% audit more frequently than once yearly [46]
Data Integrity Validation	Monthly	Institutions conducting monthly data reviews prevent "mountain of unreviewed files" [44]
Regulatory Change Impact Assessment	Continuous with formal quarterly review	22% of organizations struggle to keep current with compliance changes [46]
Participant-facing Document Review	Semi-annually	Aligns with expedited review pathways for minor document modifications [26]
Safety Reporting Process Evaluation	Monthly with comprehensive annual review	Supports timely reporting of unanticipated problems within mandated timelines [26]

Experimental Protocol: Establishing a Continuous Compliance Workflow

Protocol Title

Continuous Compliance Monitoring for Studies Without Fixed Expiration Dates

Principle and Background

Studies without conventional expiration dates—including biorepositories, longitudinal observational studies, and registry databases—require a fundamentally different compliance approach than time-bound clinical trials. This protocol establishes a systematic framework for ongoing regulatory oversight that aligns with IRB expedited review categories for minor changes, creating a sustainable model for perpetual compliance.

Materials and Reagents

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Compliance Management

Item	Function	Application Context
Centralized Document Management Platform	Version control for protocols, consents, and IRB correspondence	Required for multi-site studies and longitudinal protocols with frequent minor modifications
Automated Edit Check System	Real-time data validation against predefined quality rules	Integrated with electronic data capture (EDC) systems to flag protocol deviations immediately
Regulatory Change Tracking Software	Monitoring and alerting for relevant regulatory updates	Essential for studies spanning multiple years amid evolving regulatory landscapes
Electronic Consent Documentation System	Audit trail for re-consent activities when protocols change	Critical when amendments affect participant risk or willingness to continue [26]
Cross-functional Compliance Dashboard	Unified view of compliance metrics across departments	Enables shared accountability between research, IT, and compliance teams [44]

Workflow Diagram

Diagram 1: Continuous compliance workflow for studies without expiration dates, illustrating the pathway for managing protocol changes through appropriate IRB review channels.

Step-by-Step Methodology

Step 1: Pre-Submission Compliance Assessment (Quarterly)

• Conduct targeted data reviews on a 5% random sample of study records monthly to identify emerging compliance trends [44]
• Perform root cause analysis for any identified discrepancies to determine if issues stem from training gaps, system errors, or protocol misinterpretation
• Document findings in a dedicated compliance tracking log with assigned remediation actions and timelines

Step 2: Change Classification and Routing (Ongoing)

• Apply IRB criteria for "minor" changes: spelling corrections, updated contact information, addition of non-substantial recruitment materials [26]
• Route significant changes (new risks, altered risk/benefit profile, removal of safety monitoring) for full board review [26]
• Maintain change classification log with rationale for each determination to establish consistent decision-making patterns

Step 3: Expedited Review Package Preparation (As Needed)

• Complete expedited review submission form with detailed description of changes and rationale
• Provide revised protocol documents with all changes highlighted for efficient reviewer assessment
• Include plan for participant notification when changes could affect willingness to continue participation [26]

Step 4: Implementation and Documentation (Post-Approval)

• Execute approved changes according to IRB-stipulated timeline
• Notify current participants of changes when required, using IRB-approved communication materials
• Update study documentation including protocol, consent templates, and investigator binders
• Archive approval documents in the central regulatory repository with appropriate version control

Step 5: Annual Comprehensive Review (12-Month Cycle)

• Conduct holistic protocol assessment to evaluate cumulative impact of all changes implemented throughout the year
• Verify alignment between original research objectives and current study activities
• Assess consent form adequacy considering all modifications since initial approval
• Prepare annual report for IRB including progress summary, participant accrual, and synopsis of all changes

Data Analysis and Interpretation

• Calculate compliance metrics: protocol deviation rates, time to IRB approval for modifications, participant retention relative to protocol changes
• Track expedited review outcomes: approval rate, median review timeline, common requested modifications
• Analyze root cause trends: identify recurring issues in protocol implementation or documentation requiring systemic solutions

Troubleshooting Guide

• Challenge: High volume of modifications requiring full board review despite minor nature
• Solution: Request pre-submission consultation with IRB chair to establish precedent for expedited classification of recurring change types
• Challenge: Participant confusion regarding cumulative changes to study procedures
• Solution: Implement simplified "participant summary of changes" document distributed with annual review materials

Application Note: Risk-Based Framework for Studies Without Expiration Dates

Risk Assessment Matrix

Managing studies without fixed expiration dates requires a nuanced approach to risk assessment that goes beyond time-based triggers. The following matrix provides a structured framework for evaluating and mitigating risks in perpetual studies:

Table: Risk Assessment Matrix for Studies Without Expiration Dates

Risk Category	Low Risk Indicators	High Risk Indicators	Monitoring Strategy
Data Integrity	Automated validation rules; <2% error rate	Manual processes; >5% error rate; legacy systems	Monthly automated checks; quarterly manual validation [44]
Participant Safety	Minimal risk categorization; annual safety reviews	More than minimal risk; new safety information emerging	Continuous adverse event monitoring; semi-annual safety review [26]
Regulatory Compliance	Centralized documentation; audit-ready status	Incomplete documentation; past compliance issues	Quarterly internal audits; regulatory change tracking [45]
Protocol Deviations	<5% deviation rate; consistent downward trend	>10% deviation rate; increasing trend	Real-time deviation tracking; root cause analysis for all events
Informed Consent	Updated for all substantial changes; high comprehension scores	Cumulative changes without re-consent; low comprehension	Annual consent form review; comprehension assessment with new participants

Implementing a Tiered Review System

A tiered review system aligns monitoring intensity with actual study risk, optimizing resource allocation while maintaining compliance integrity:

• Tier 1 (Low Risk): Bi-annual expedited review focusing on material changes only
• Tier 2 (Moderate Risk): Quarterly expedited review with full annual assessment
• Tier 3 (High Risk): Monthly compliance monitoring with quarterly expedited review and semi-annual full board assessment

This framework enables researchers to justify appropriate oversight levels to IRBs based on documented risk assessments rather than defaulting to maximal review frequencies regardless of actual risk profile.

Protocol: Managing Amendments Under Expedited Review Categories

Protocol Title

Streamlined Amendment Management for Minor Changes to Previously Approved Research

Principle and Background

Expedited review procedures provide an efficient pathway for implementing minor changes to approved protocols without requiring full board review. Understanding the scope and limitations of this mechanism is essential for maintaining compliance agility while respecting regulatory boundaries for substantive changes.

Workflow Diagram

Diagram 2: Amendment management workflow showing classification of changes into expedited and full board review pathways with representative examples.

Step-by-Step Methodology

Step 1: Change Significance Determination

• Review proposed change against IRB's predefined criteria for minor modifications
• Consult FDA guidance on categories eligible for expedited review [17]
• Document significance determination with specific rationale referencing regulatory criteria

Step 2: Expedited Review Package Preparation

• Complete expedited review request form with detailed change description and justification
• Provide clean and marked-up versions of all modified documents
• Include assessment of impact on participant risk, benefits, and willingness to continue

Step 3: Post-Approval Implementation

• Execute changes only after receiving IRB approval
• Notify current participants when changes affect study procedures or risks [26]
• Update protocol documentation and training materials to reflect modifications

Proactive compliance strategies centered on annual check-ins and sophisticated management of studies without expiration dates represent a paradigm shift in research oversight. By leveraging expedited review mechanisms for minor changes, researchers can establish continuous compliance processes that are both efficient and rigorous. This approach transforms compliance from a reactive obligation into a strategic asset that enhances research quality, protects participants, and ultimately accelerates the drug development timeline.

The frameworks and protocols presented provide actionable methodologies for implementing this proactive approach across diverse research environments. As regulatory landscapes continue evolving, these strategies offer the flexibility needed to maintain compliance excellence while supporting innovative research designs that may not conform to traditional time-bound models.

The designated reviewer queue is the administrative workflow for processing research submissions that qualify for expedited review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Contrary to what the term "expedited" might imply, this review pathway is defined not by speed but by the type of review procedure: a single experienced reviewer conducts the evaluation instead of a full committee, as permitted by federal regulations for research posing no more than minimal risk [1] [47]. Understanding the operational dynamics of this queue is fundamental for researchers to set accurate timeline expectations and navigate the ethical review process efficiently.

This review mechanism is exclusively available for research that meets two strict criteria. First, the research must present no more than minimal risk to human participants. Second, the research activities must fall within one or more of nine federally established categories [47]. These categories include specific types of data collection and biological specimen procedures, such as non-invasive biological sample collection (e.g., hair, saliva, dental plaque), blood sampling from healthy volunteers under defined limits, and studies involving voice, video, or image recordings [1] [31]. The designated reviewer queue thus serves as a critical administrative channel for ensuring that minimal risk research undergoes appropriate, efficient ethical oversight without the administrative burden of full committee review.

Operational Mechanics of the Review Queue

Submission Routing and Reviewer Assignment

Upon submission, IRB administrative staff conduct an initial intake and screening process to verify the completeness of the application, including all necessary forms, study protocols, signatures, and required training certifications [48]. Only after this administrative check is complete is the application routed into the designated reviewer queue [48]. Applications within this queue are generally reviewed in the order they are received, but assignment to a specific reviewer also depends on the reviewer's expertise and availability [1] [48]. This matching process ensures that protocols are evaluated by reviewers with appropriate knowledge of the research methodology and subject area.

The Iterative Review and Revision Cycle

The expedited review process is typically iterative, involving multiple rounds of communication between the reviewer and the research team. Reviewers use electronic submission systems to unlock application packages when they require revisions, justifications, or clarifications [1] [48]. Researchers must address all concerns and re-lock their packages by marking revisions complete before the review can proceed [1]. This cycle may repeat several times until all approval criteria are satisfied. Because this process is not bound by scheduled committee meetings, it can offer flexibility; however, the back-and-forth communication can significantly impact the overall timeline [1].

Table: Key Stages in the Designated Reviewer Workflow

Stage	Key Actions	Outcome
Intake & Screening	IRB analyst checks for completeness of submission materials [48].	Application is routed to the designated reviewer queue or returned for completion.
Reviewer Assignment	Application assigned to a qualified reviewer based on submission date and expertise [1] [48].	Application enters the active review queue.
Substantive Review	Designated reviewer evaluates against approval criteria [1] [31].	Reviewer unlocks package to request revisions or approves the study.
Investigator Response	Researcher addresses concerns and re-locks package [1] [48].	Package is returned to the reviewer for re-assessment.
Final Determination	Reviewer confirms all criteria are met [1].	Official determination letter is issued in the IRB system [48].

Quantitative Performance Metrics

Performance data from multiple institutions reveals that while the expedited review process is generally faster than full committee review, actual timelines exhibit considerable variation. Current metrics provide a realistic foundation for setting researcher expectations.

Data from Boston University Medical Campus for the third quarter of 2025 shows that expedited reviews had a median turnaround of 5 days from submission to final determination, compared to 28 days for full-board reviews [49]. However, the range for expedited reviews was wide (0-49 days), indicating significant variability depending on the complexity of the protocol and the quality of the initial submission [49]. Northeastern University reports a median turnaround of 10 business days for new expedited applications, highlighting how institutional differences can impact timeline expectations [50].

Table: Comparative IRB Review Timelines (2025 Data)

Institution	Review Type	Median Turnaround Time	Reported Range	75th Percentile
Boston University Medical Campus [49]	Expedited	5 days	0 - 49 days	12 days
Boston University Medical Campus [49]	Full-Board	28 days	5 - 50 days	33 days
Boston University Medical Campus [49]	Exempt	7 days	0 - 42 days	19 days
Northeastern University [50]	Expedited/Exempt	10 business days	Not specified	Not specified

The 75th percentile data is particularly informative for timeline planning, as it indicates how long the slowest quartile of reviews takes to complete. At Boston University, for instance, 75% of expedited reviews were finalized within 12 days in Q3 2025, meaning 25% took longer than this period [49]. This metric helps researchers understand that while many reviews are completed quickly, a significant minority may experience longer delays.

Workflow Diagram: The Designated Reviewer Queue

The diagram above illustrates the sequential pathway and potential feedback loops within the designated reviewer queue. Notably, the iterative revision cycle between substantive review and investigator response can significantly impact total review duration. This visualization highlights critical decision points where applications may experience delays or require rerouting.

Experimental Protocol for Tracking Review Timelines

Objective

To systematically document and analyze the timeline of IRB expedited reviews for minor changes to previously approved research, identifying key variables that influence review duration and developing evidence-based expectations for researchers.

Materials and Reagents

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Timeline Analysis

Item	Function/Application	Specifications
Electronic IRB Submission System Access	Platform for protocol submission, tracking, and communication [48].	e.g., IRBNet, ETHOS, INSPIR
IRB Administrative Contact Information	Direct communication for procedural inquiries and status updates [1].	IRB chair/administrator email and phone
Document Version Control System	Tracks revision history and submission iterations [48].	e.g., IRBNet's locking feature
Institutional Performance Metrics	Benchmarking against historical review timelines [49] [50].	Published median and percentile data
Federal Regulatory Guidance Documents	Reference for expedited review categories and requirements [18] [31].	45 CFR 46.110 and institutional SOPs

Methodology

• Pre-Submission Preparation Phase: Prior to official submission, confirm that the proposed modification qualifies as a minor change according to institutional policies, typically defined as alterations that do not increase risks or adversely affect the risk-benefit balance [3]. Assemble all required documents, including the modified protocol, updated consent forms (if applicable), and completed application forms.

• Submission and Documentation Phase: Submit the complete package electronically through the institutional IRB system [48]. Record the date and time of submission as Time Zero (T0). Activate tracking mechanisms for all subsequent communications.

• Monitoring and Data Collection Phase: Systematically document all key milestones and communications:

  • Date of IRB intake completion
  • Date of assignment to designated reviewer
  • Dates of any revision requests (package unlocks)
  • Dates of researcher responses (marking revisions complete)
  • Date of final approval letter issuance

• Data Analysis Phase: Calculate total review duration (T0 to final approval). Analyze the proportion of time spent in IRB processing versus investigator response phases. Compare results against institutional benchmarks and identify factors contributing to timeline variations [49].

Strategic Optimization Guidelines

Pre-Submission Strategies

Researchers can significantly improve their review timelines through careful preparation before submission. Comprehensive protocol development is essential, ensuring that the application clearly demonstrates how the research qualifies for expedited review by explicitly linking procedures to specific federal categories and justifying the minimal risk determination [31] [47]. Utilizing institutional checklists and reviewer guides, when publicly available, helps align submissions with IRB expectations by clarifying the scope of review for exempt and expedited protocols [50]. Before final submission, conducting an internal pre-review against approval criteria ensures that all required elements are addressed, potentially reducing the need for multiple revision cycles [1].

Post-Submission Management

Once submitted, proactive management can help navigate the review process efficiently. Prompt and complete responses to revision requests are crucial, as the median time submissions spend in investigators' offices is notably short (0 days for expedited reviews at some institutions) [49]. Researchers should carefully review all feedback, address each concern comprehensively, and use the electronic system's "Mark Revisions Complete" feature to properly signal readiness for re-review [48]. For genuine timing emergencies, some IRBs offer case-by-case rush review evaluations, which typically require justification, a specific needed-by date, and discussion of potential impacts on participant rights and welfare [48].

The designated reviewer queue represents a specialized IRB workflow for minimal risk research that, while generally more efficient than full committee review, follows a distinct operational logic with variable timelines. Successful navigation requires understanding that "expedited" refers to review level rather than guaranteed speed [1]. By implementing strategic approaches—including thorough pre-submission preparation, understanding institutional performance metrics, and responsive communication during the review process—researchers can optimize their timeline expectations and management of the IRB review process for minor changes to approved research.

Within the framework of Institutional Review Board (IRB) operations, the designated reviewer serves a critical function in the expedited review mechanism for certain categories of research. This role, typically filled by the IRB chairperson or one or more experienced IRB members appointed by the chair, enables efficient review of specific research activities without convening a full board meeting [51]. The designated reviewer's authority is derived from federal regulations, which permit an expedited review procedure for research involving no more than minimal risk and for minor changes in previously approved research [51]. Understanding the precise scope and boundaries of this authority is essential for maintaining both regulatory compliance and rigorous ethical oversight while facilitating timely research progress.

The expedited review process exists to reduce administrative burdens on IRBs without undermining the protection of research participants [3]. This balance is particularly relevant for minor changes to previously approved research, which constitute a significant portion of IRB amendments. However, federal regulations do not explicitly define what constitutes a "minor change," placing responsibility on research institutions to develop clear policies that guide designated reviewers in their determinations [3]. This article examines the authority and limitations of designated reviewers within the context of expedited review for minor protocol changes, providing practical guidance for researchers and IRB professionals.

Regulatory Framework and Definitions

Legal Foundation for Expedited Review

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have established parallel regulatory provisions for expedited IRB review. Under FDA regulations at 21 CFR 56.110, an IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review "minor changes in previously approved research during the period (of 1 year or less) for which approval is authorized" [51]. Similarly, HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.110 authorize this mechanism, with both agencies stipulating that the review may be conducted by the IRB chairperson or by one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chairperson from among the IRB members [8].

The regulatory criteria for expedited review are two-fold. First, the research activity must present no more than minimal risk to human subjects. Second, the proposed procedures must fall within specific categories enumerated by the federal regulations [8]. For the purpose of reviewing minor changes, the key determination is whether the proposed modification qualifies as truly "minor" in nature, a assessment that must be made within the context of the specific research protocol and its potential impact on participant safety and welfare.

Defining "Minor Change" in Practice

While federal regulations do not provide a precise definition of "minor change," regulatory agencies and accreditation bodies have offered guidance. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) advises that any change to research that "materially affects the balance of benefits and risks should not be considered minor" [3]. Similarly, the FDA states that "any change that increases the risk or discomfort of the study should not be considered minor" [3].

A study of IRB policies at the 200 most highly-funded U.S. research institutions revealed that approximately 52.2% of IRBs had policies defining minor changes, while 43.5% provided examples of what would constitute a minor change [3]. The table below summarizes the elements most frequently addressed in institutional definitions of minor changes.

Table 1: Elements Addressed in Institutional Definitions of Minor Changes (n=96)

Definitional Element	Percentage of Policies Addressing Element
Risks or discomforts	82.3%
Research methods, aims, or procedures	50.0%
Balance or assessment of benefits and risks	34.4%
Research team	18.8%
Research facilities	18.8%
Study population size or composition	18.8%
Consent process or willingness to participate	10.4%
Other elements	20.8%

Source: Adapted from PMC3443864 [3]

Authority of the Designated Reviewer

Scope of Review Power

The designated reviewer exercises substantial but circumscribed authority within the expedited review process. When reviewing minor changes to previously approved research, the designated reviewer may:

• Approve the proposed changes as submitted
• Require specific modifications to secure approval
• Exercise all of the authorities of the full IRB, with one critical exception [51]

A key procedural aspect is that the reviewer may approve minor changes without involving the full IRB at a convened meeting, leading to potentially quicker turnaround times for researchers [3]. This efficiency benefit is a primary rationale for the expedited review procedure, allowing the full IRB to focus its attention on more complex or higher-risk protocols.

Permissible Categories for Expedited Review

The designated reviewer's authority extends to minor changes across various research domains. The following categories represent common types of minor changes eligible for expedited review:

• Administrative modifications: Correcting grammatical or typographical errors in the protocol or consent form [3]
• Personnel changes: Adding new investigators or research sites, provided this does not alter the risk profile [3]
• Procedural adjustments: Slightly increasing the amount of blood collected within established limits [3] [8]
• Documentation updates: Minor revisions to consent forms that do not affect the risk-benefit balance
• Data collection modifications: Adding non-invasive procedures or adjusting assessment schedules

Table 2: Examples of Minor Changes Eligible for Expedited Review

Category of Change	Specific Examples	Considerations
Procedural	Adding urine collection to an approved study [3]	Must pose no known risks to participants
Methodological	Slight increase in blood draw volume (within established limits) [3]	Must not exceed regulatory limits (e.g., 550 ml in 8 weeks for healthy adults) [8]
Personnel	Adding new co-investigators or research staff	New personnel must have appropriate credentials and training
Administrative	Correcting typographical errors in consent forms [3]	Must not alter the meaning or content of information provided

Limitations and Restrictions

Fundamental Boundaries on Authority

The authority of the designated reviewer is explicitly constrained by several critical limitations. Most significantly, designated reviewers may not disapprove research—this authority rests solely with the full IRB through the non-expedited review procedure [51]. This fundamental restriction ensures that decisions potentially limiting research progression receive the collective judgment of the convened board.

Additional restrictions include:

• Inability to review certain categories: The expedited review procedure may not be used for classified research involving human subjects [8]
• Privacy and confidentiality limitations: Expedited review may not be used where identification of subjects or their responses would reasonably place them at risk of criminal or civil liability, or be damaging to subjects' financial standing, employability, insurability, reputation, unless adequate protections are implemented [8]
• Continuing review restrictions: For research not conducted under an IND or IDE, continuing review may only be conducted via expedited review if the IRB has determined and documented at a convened meeting that the research involves no greater than minimal risk and no additional risks have been identified [8]

Changes Exceeding "Minor" Threshold

Certain types of modifications inherently exceed the boundaries of what may be considered "minor" and thus require full IRB review. These include, but are not limited to:

• Risk-increasing changes: Any change that increases the risks to participants or decreases the acceptability of risks [3] [8]
• Benefit-altering modifications: Changes that materially affect the risk-benefit balance [3]
• Substantive procedural changes: Introduction of new invasive procedures or significant alterations to study design
• Population changes: Expansion to vulnerable populations not originally approved
• Significant consent form revisions: Changes that affect the nature of information provided to potential participants

The determination of whether a change qualifies as "minor" requires careful consideration of both the specific alteration and its context within the overall research protocol. As evidenced by the variability in institutional policies, this assessment often involves significant judgment and interpretation [3].

Implementation Protocols for Designated Reviewers

Decision-Making Algorithm for Reviewers

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and decision pathway that designated reviewers should follow when evaluating proposed changes to approved research:

Diagram 1: Decision Pathway for Expedited Review of Minor Changes

Documentation and Institutional Compliance

Designated reviewers must adhere to specific documentation requirements and institutional procedures when conducting expedited reviews. Key protocol requirements include:

• Written procedures: Each IRB that uses an expedited review procedure must adopt a method for keeping all members advised of research proposals approved under the procedure [51]
• Meeting minutes: When an IRB reviews outside studies, the minutes should clearly show members are aware of where the study is to be conducted and that the IRB possesses appropriate knowledge about the study site(s) [17]
• Policy consistency: IRB policies should be internally consistent so investigators view decisions as fair, and externally consistent to ensure equal participant protection across institutions [3]
• Accreditation standards: Organizations seeking AAHRPP accreditation must follow written policies and procedures for expedited review of changes to previously approved studies [3]

The implementation of these protocols helps ensure that the expedited review process maintains transparency and accountability, even when conducted by a single designated reviewer rather than the full board.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Navigating Expedited Review

For researchers and drug development professionals seeking to utilize the expedited review process for minor changes, certain strategic approaches and "tools" can facilitate smoother protocol management:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Expedited Review Management

Tool/Solution	Function/Purpose	Implementation Guidance
Pre-Review Assessment Checklist	Self-assessment tool to determine if a proposed change likely qualifies as "minor"	Use institutional policies and FDA/OHRP guidance to evaluate risk profile before formal submission
Change Impact Matrix	Systematic evaluation of how a modification affects different protocol elements	Document potential effects on risks, benefits, procedures, and consent process to support justification
Institutional Policy Database	Repository of organization-specific definitions and examples of minor changes	Reference specific institutional precedents when preparing amendment requests
Comparative Analysis Framework	Tool for comparing proposed changes to previously approved modifications	Demonstrate consistency with prior expedited reviews for similar changes
Regulatory Cross-Reference Guide	Mapping of proposed change to eligible expedited review categories	Align submission language with specific regulatory categories (e.g., 21 CFR 56.110)

The role of the designated reviewer in the expedited review of minor changes represents a carefully balanced mechanism within the human research protection system. While possessing substantial authority to approve modifications and exercise IRB powers, the designated reviewer operates within clearly defined boundaries that prioritize participant safety and ethical rigor. The critical limitation—the inability to disapprove research—ensures that potentially contentious decisions receive the collective wisdom of the full IRB.

For the research community, understanding this balance is essential for efficient protocol management and regulatory compliance. By recognizing both the opportunities and constraints of the expedited review process, researchers and IRB professionals can work collaboratively to advance scientific inquiry while maintaining the highest standards of human subjects protection. Future developments in this area will likely continue to refine the definition of "minor change" and enhance the consistency of its application across research institutions, further strengthening the integrity of the ethical review process.

Expedited vs. Full Board Review: Validating Your Path and Ensuring Ongoing Compliance

Within the framework of human subjects research protections, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) operates through distinct review pathways tailored to the level of risk a study presents. For research involving only minor changes to previously approved protocols, the expedited review process offers an efficient alternative to the full committee review (FCR), provided the research maintains a minimal risk profile [52]. This application note provides a direct comparison between expedited and full committee review processes, with specific emphasis on the context of minor changes research—a critical area for drug development professionals and researchers seeking to modify ongoing studies. The federal regulations define minimal risk as the state where "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [52] [8]. Understanding the precise boundaries between these review levels is essential for maintaining regulatory compliance while efficiently advancing scientific research.

Comparative Analysis: Key Distinguishing Factors

The choice between expedited and full committee review is determined by specific regulatory criteria. The fundamental distinction rests on risk level and corresponding procedural requirements [52] [9]. The following comparison table summarizes the quantitative and qualitative differences between these two review pathways.

Table 1: Direct Comparison of Expedited versus Full Committee Review Characteristics

Review Characteristic	Expedited Review	Full Committee Review
Risk Level	No more than minimal risk [52] [8]	Greater than minimal risk [52] [9]
Review Authority	IRB chair or designated experienced reviewer(s) [8]	Convened committee at a scheduled meeting [52]
Meeting Requirement	No convened meeting required [8]	Required convened meeting (e.g., monthly) [52] [53]
Approval Authority	Approve, require modifications, table, or refer to full board [8]	Approve, require modifications, table, or disapprove [53]
Disapproval Authority	Cannot disapprove; must refer to full board [8]	Full authority to disapprove research [8] [53]
Annual Review Requirement	May or may not be required [52]	Always required [52]
Modification Handling	Minor changes to approved research eligible [3] [54]	All modifications require prior approval [52]
Typical Examples	• Minor protocol amendments• Blood collection via venipuncture• Noninvasive biospecimen collection• Voice/video recording• Surveys/interviews [8] [9] [54]	• Research with vulnerable populations• Studies involving significant physical risk• Research on sensitive topics• FDA-regulated drug/device trials [52] [9]

The Role of Risk Assessment in Review Classification

The risk assessment process serves as the primary gatekeeper determining which review pathway a research study will follow. For expedited review, two criteria must be simultaneously met: the research must present no more than minimal risk, and the research procedures must fall within one of the federally-defined expedited categories [8]. These categories include specific clinical procedures, such as collecting blood samples under defined volume limits, prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means, and research on individual or group characteristics using survey, interview, or focus group methodologies [8] [54].

For minor changes to previously approved research, the expedited review pathway is specifically authorized under federal regulations [3]. However, institutions vary in their interpretations of what constitutes a "minor change," with some studies indicating that only about 52% of IRBs have formal policies defining the term [3]. The most common element in these definitions (82.3% of policies) focuses on whether the change increases risks or discomforts to subjects [3].

Experimental Protocols for Minor Changes Research

Protocol 1: Submission Pathway for Minor Modifications

Objective: To systematically evaluate and route minor changes to previously approved research through the appropriate IRB review pathway.

Workflow:

• Amendment Identification: Researcher identifies required modification to approved protocol.
• Risk Assessment Questionnaire: Researcher completes standardized institutional checklist evaluating:
  • Potential risk increase to subjects
  • Changes to research procedures, methods, or aims
  • Impact on risk-benefit ratio
  • Modifications to research team
  • Changes to study population or enrollment
  • Alterations to informed consent process [3]
• Documentation Preparation: Researcher assembles amendment package including:
  • Revised protocol sections with changes highlighted
  • Updated consent documents (if applicable)
  • Revised recruitment materials (if applicable)
  • Justification for modification
• IRB Staff Triage: IRB administrative staff review submission against institutional criteria for minor changes:
  • No material effect on risk-benefit balance [3]
  • No increase in risk or discomfort [3]
  • Fits within expedited review categories [8]
• Reviewer Assignment: For modifications meeting minor change criteria, IRB chair assigns one or more experienced reviewers [8].
• Expedited Review Execution: Designated reviewer applies same regulatory criteria as full committee but without convened meeting:
  • Risks minimized
  • Risk-benefit ratio favorable
  • Subject selection equitable
  • Informed consent adequate
  • Data monitoring sufficient
  • Privacy/confidentiality protected [8]
• Determination Notification: IRB communicates approval, modifications required, or referral to full board within institutional timelines.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Submission Protocols

Reagent/Material	Primary Function	Application Context
Protocol Amendment Checklist	Standardizes risk assessment for modifications	Ensures consistent evaluation of minor changes across studies [3]
Informed Consent Template	Provides regulatory-compliant consent framework	Expedited creation of consent documents for modified protocols [52]
Risk-Benefit Assessment Tool	Quantifies impact of proposed changes	Objective evaluation of whether modification alters risk profile [3]
Electronic Submission System	Streamlines document management and tracking	Efficient routing of minor change amendments to appropriate reviewers [53]

Protocol 2: Continuing Review Procedures for Expedited Studies

Objective: To conduct continuing review of research previously approved by expedited review or full committee, as appropriate to current study status.

Workflow:

• Continuing Review Trigger: IRB system generates notification 60-90 days before approval expiration.
• Status Assessment: Investigator completes progress report detailing:
  • Cumulative enrollment data
  • Summary of adverse events
  • Protocol modifications implemented
  • Current study status (active, completed, etc.)
• Eligibility Determination: IRB staff assess whether study qualifies for expedited continuing review under categories including:
  • Research permanently closed to enrollment with subjects completing interventions
  • Research active only for long-term follow-up
  • No subjects enrolled and no additional risks identified
  • Research limited to data analysis [8] [54]
• Review Pathway Assignment:
  • Studies meeting expedited criteria assigned to designated reviewer
  • Studies requiring full committee review placed on next convened meeting agenda
• Documentation Update: Investigator submits any updated documents (consent forms, recruitment materials) requiring endorsement.
• Regulatory Determination: IRB issues continued approval, modifications required, or suspension/termination as appropriate.

Diagram 1: Minor Changes Review Pathway

Regulatory Framework and Compliance Considerations

Institutional Variations in Minor Changes Classification

Research indicates significant variability in how institutions interpret and apply the "minor changes" classification. A study of 184 highly funded research institutions found that only 52.2% had policies explicitly defining minor changes, while 43.5% provided examples without formal definitions [3]. This institutional variation can lead to differences in human subjects protection across research organizations. The most frequently cited elements in definitions of minor changes included:

• No significant increase to risks or discomforts (82.3% of policies)
• No change to research methods, aims, or procedures (50.0%)
• No effect on risk/benefit ratio (34.4%)
• No change to research team composition (18.8%) [3]

Accredited institutional programs were more likely to provide definitions or examples of minor changes, suggesting that accreditation standards promote policy development in this area [3].

Regulatory Boundaries and Referral Mechanisms

The expedited review process operates within clearly defined regulatory boundaries. While expedited reviewers can approve studies or require modifications, they lack authority to disapprove research—such actions require referral to the full committee [8]. Additionally, any IRB member may request that a protocol undergoing expedited review be referred to the full committee, providing an important safeguard mechanism [8] [55]. For minor changes research, this creates a system where straightforward modifications proceed efficiently through expedited review, while contentious or higher-risk changes receive the collective scrutiny of the convened board.

Understanding the distinction between expedited and full committee review processes provides significant strategic advantages for researchers and drug development professionals. The expedited review pathway offers an efficient mechanism for approving minor changes to previously approved research, potentially reducing administrative burden and accelerating implementation of protocol modifications. However, this efficiency must be balanced against the comprehensive protection offered by full committee review for substantial changes affecting study risk profiles. Researchers should carefully assess whether proposed modifications truly maintain the study's minimal risk status and fall within the federally-defined expedited categories. When uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate review pathway, consultation with IRB staff during the planning phase can prevent unnecessary delays and ensure regulatory compliance throughout the research lifecycle.

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) functions as a critical checkpoint in the research ecosystem, ensuring the ethical conduct of studies involving human subjects. While expedited review offers an efficient pathway for minimal-risk research and minor changes, a full board review by a convened IRB remains mandatory for studies possessing specific risk profiles or ethical complexities. Framed within a broader thesis on IRB expedited review for minor changes, this document delineates the precise scenarios where this streamlined process is insufficient and a full board review is unequivocally required. Understanding these boundaries is essential for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals to validate their approach, maintain regulatory compliance, and safeguard participant welfare.

IRB Review Levels and Regulatory Framework

The Common Rule (45 CFR 46) and FDA regulations (21 CFR 50 and 56) establish a tiered system of IRB review, categorized primarily by the level of risk presented to research participants.

• Exempt Review: Applies to research activities with minimal risk that fall into one of eight specific regulatory categories, such as anonymous surveys or analysis of publicly available data [41] [16]. This type of review is exempt from the requirements of 45 CFR 46 but still requires an initial determination by the IRB [16].
• Expedited Review: A designated IRB member or subset of members may review research that presents no more than minimal risk and involves only procedures listed in federally defined categories [41] [31]. It is crucial to note that "expedited" refers to the process of review, not the speed, and the same approval criteria as full board review apply [16] [31].
• Full Board Review: Research that involves more than minimal risk, does not fit into an expedited category, or involves specific vulnerable populations must be reviewed at a convened meeting of the IRB with a quorum of members present [17] [16]. This process provides the most comprehensive level of scrutiny.

Table 1: Categories of IRB Review

Review Level	Risk Level	Key Characteristics	Examples
Exempt [41] [16]	Minimal	Fits specific regulatory categories; still requires IRB determination.	Educational research, anonymous surveys, analysis of publicly available data.
Expedited [41] [16] [31]	Minimal	Review by a designated IRB member; same approval criteria as full board.	Collection of blood samples, non-invasive biological specimen collection, voice recordings.
Full Board [17] [16]	More than minimal risk	Review by a convened IRB at a meeting with a quorum.	Studies with invasive procedures, research with vulnerable populations, clinical trials of investigational drugs.

Specific Scenarios Mandating Full Board Review

A study initially deemed eligible for expedited review, or a minor change to an approved protocol, may trigger the requirement for full board review through specific developments. The following scenarios necessitate this elevated review level.

Escalation Beyond Minimal Risk

The cornerstone of expedited review is that the research presents no more than minimal risk to participants, meaning the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations [16]. The introduction of any procedure or change that elevates risk beyond this threshold mandates full board review. This includes [41]:

• Introduction of Invasive Medical Procedures: Adding surgeries, biopsies, or other invasive interventions not covered under expedited categories.
• Increased Psychological or Social Risk: Introducing sensitive survey questions concerning illegal activities, sexual behavior, or mental health that could potentially cause emotional distress or social harm.
• Significant Data Confidentiality Risks: Altering data collection or storage methods in a way that increases the risk of a breach involving identifiable private information.

Involvement of Vulnerable Populations

Federal regulations afford additional protections to specific vulnerable populations. Research that involves these groups often requires full board oversight to ensure these protections are rigorously applied [41]. Key populations include:

• Children: Individuals who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatments or procedures under the applicable law of the jurisdiction [31].
• Prisoners: Afforded specific protections under Subpart C of 45 CFR 46.
• Individuals with Cognitive Impairments or Decision-Making Disabilities: Those who may have a diminished capacity for autonomous, informed consent.

Substantive Protocol Deviations and Amendments

Not all changes to an approved protocol are considered minor. Significant amendments that alter the fundamental nature of the study or its risk-benefit profile require re-evaluation by the full board [41]. Examples include:

• Major Changes to Study Design or Objectives: Shifting the primary endpoint or core methodology.
• Expansion of Participant Eligibility Criteria: Broadening inclusion criteria to encompass a more diverse or higher-risk demographic, such as shifting from adult-only to adolescent participation [41].
• Changes to Dosing or Intervention: For drug and device studies, increasing the dosage of an investigational product or altering the intervention in a way that could increase risk.

Occurrence of Adverse Events and Unanticipated Problems

The occurrence of serious, unexpected adverse events that are possibly related to the research intervention constitutes an unanticipated problem. In such cases, the IRB may escalate the review to a full board to collectively reassess the study's risks and the adequacy of protections in place for participant safety [41].

Emergence of Ethical or Legal Concerns

Any new ethical dilemmas or legal compliance issues that arise during the course of the research may trigger a full board review. This ensures a multidisciplinary group can thoroughly deliberate on the complex issues at hand [41]. Such concerns may involve:

• Informed Consent Process Deficiencies: Questions regarding the adequacy or comprehensibility of the consent form or process.
• International Data Collection and Privacy Laws: Navigating conflicts between the study protocol and foreign data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR).

Table 2: Scenarios Triggering Transition from Expedited to Full Board Review

Triggering Scenario	Specific Examples	Regulatory / Ethical Rationale
Introduction of > Minimal Risk [41]	Adding invasive surgeries; surveys on traumatic experiences.	Protection of participant rights and welfare from unacceptable levels of risk.
Involvement of Vulnerable Populations [41]	Enrolling children, prisoners, cognitively impaired persons.	Assurance of additional regulatory protections (Subparts B, C, D of 45 CFR 46).
Significant Protocol Changes [41]	Changing key endpoints; expanding to adolescent cohorts.	Re-assessment of risk-benefit balance after material changes to the study.
Adverse Events [41]	Unexpected serious side effects; data confidentiality breaches.	Proactive safety monitoring and reassessment of ongoing study risks.
Ethical/Legal Concerns [41]	Complex consent issues; conflicts with international privacy laws.	Resolution of complex ethical dilemmas and ensuring regulatory compliance.

Experimental Protocol: Decision Pathway for Review Level Determination

This protocol provides a standardized methodology for researchers and IRB administrators to determine the appropriate level of IRB review for a research study or a proposed amendment.

4.1 Purpose: To establish a consistent, regulatory-compliant workflow for classifying research as Exempt, Expedited, or requiring Full Board Review.

4.2 Materials and Reagents Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Review Preparation

Item	Function
Research Protocol Document	The master document detailing study objectives, design, methodology, and statistical analysis.
Informed Consent Form (ICF) Template	Draft document ensuring all required regulatory elements are included for participant comprehension.
Investigator's Brochure (IB)	For drug/device studies, provides all relevant preclinical and clinical data on the investigational product.
Regulatory Reference Guides (e.g., 45 CFR 46, 21 CFR 56)	Authoritative sources for definitive review category criteria and regulatory requirements.
IRB Application System	The electronic or paper-based system for submitting all required study materials for review.

4.3 Workflow and Decision Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the logical decision process for determining the required level of IRB review, integrating checks for scenarios that mandate full board review.

4.4 Procedures

• Initial Classification: The principal investigator submits a complete application package, including the protocol and informed consent document, via the IRB application system. Based on the provided information, an IRB administrator or chair performs a preliminary review using the decision pathway in Section 4.3.
• Risk Assessment: The reviewer systematically assesses the level of risk, referring to the categories outlined in [31]. Any uncertainty regarding risk level is resolved in favor of the more protective review process (i.e., full board review).
• Vulnerability and Protocol Analysis: The reviewer verifies the participant population against the list of vulnerable groups. For amendments, the reviewer analyzes the nature of the change, distinguishing between administrative/minor changes (eligible for expedited review) and substantive modifications (which may require full board review) [41] [31].
• Documentation and Submission: The determined review level is documented within the IRB system. Studies directed for full board review are scheduled for the next convened IRB meeting. The IRB retains the ultimate authority to re-categorize the review level as needed [16].

Navigating the transition from expedited to full board review is a critical component of ethical research management. For researchers focused on minor changes, it is imperative to remain vigilant for developments—such as increased risk, involvement of vulnerable populations, or significant protocol amendments—that invalidate the premises of an expedited review. By integrating the structured decision protocols and validation scenarios outlined in this document, research teams can proactively identify the need for full board scrutiny. This diligent approach ensures robust protection of human subjects, maintains regulatory integrity, and ultimately fortifies the scientific and ethical validity of the research enterprise.

This application note provides a detailed protocol for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to transition an ongoing clinical study from Full Board review to an Expedited Review pathway. Such a transition can significantly streamline ethical oversight for eligible studies, reducing administrative burden while maintaining rigorous protection of human subjects. Framed within a broader thesis on IRB expedited review for minor changes research, this document outlines the regulatory criteria, provides a step-by-step application methodology, and presents analytical tools for assessing transition eligibility. Adherence to the protocols described herein facilitates compliant and efficient IRB review processes for continuing studies.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight is a dynamic process that must adapt to the evolving risk profile of a research study. While many studies commence under Full Board review due to initial risk considerations, the nature of the research and its risks can change over time [41]. Federal regulations permit certain categories of research that initially required Full Board review to later become eligible for Expedited Review [8] [5]. This transition is particularly relevant in the context of a broader thesis on expedited review for minor changes research, as it represents a significant regulatory milestone in a study's lifecycle. Successfully navigating this transition requires a thorough understanding of regulatory criteria, meticulous documentation, and strategic communication with the IRB.

Regulatory Framework and Eligibility Criteria

The foundation for transitioning to expedited review rests on two core regulatory pillars: the study must present no more than minimal risk to human subjects, and the research activities must fit into one or more federally defined categories [8] [56]. "Minimal risk" means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine physical or psychological examinations [9].

Table: Federal Categories of Research Eligible for Expedited Review

Category Number	Description	Applicable to Initial Review
1	Clinical studies of drugs and medical devices (when an IND or IDE is not required)	Yes
2	Collection of blood samples via venipuncture or other methods under specific volume and frequency limits	Yes
3	Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means	Yes
4	Collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice	Yes
5	Research involving materials (data, documents, records, specimens) collected for nonresearch purposes	Yes
6	Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes	Yes
7	Research on individual/group characteristics or behavior using survey, interview, oral history, etc.	Yes
8	Continuing review of research previously approved by the convened IRB under specific conditions	No (Continuing only)
9	Other continuing review activities as determined by the IRB	No (Continuing only)

Categories 8 and 9 are particularly critical for transitioning from Full Board to Expedited Review. According to Category 8, a study that is permanently closed to enrollment, where all subjects have completed all research-related interventions, and where the research remains active only for long-term follow-up of subjects, may be eligible for expedited continuing review [8] [5]. Similarly, Category 9 allows for expedited continuing review of research not conducted under an IND or IDE where the IRB has determined and documented at a convened meeting that the research involves no greater than minimal risk [5].

It is crucial to note that the expedited review procedure cannot be used for classified research or where identification of subjects would place them at risk of criminal/civil liability or damage their financial standing, employability, or reputation, unless adequate protections are implemented [8] [56].

Experimental Protocol for Transition Application

Materials and Reagents

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for IRB Transition Application

Item	Function
Complete Study Protocol	Serves as the foundational document detailing all research procedures, amendments, and current status.
Updated Investigator's Brochure	Provides current safety information for drugs/devices, critical for risk reassessment.
Cumulative Enrollment & Completion Data	Quantifies subject enrollment, intervention completion, and current study activity status.
Revised Informed Consent Documents	If applicable, documents any changes to the consent process for continuing subjects.
Risk-Benefit Reassessment Narrative	A detailed justification explaining how the study now meets minimal risk criteria.
IRB-Specific Application Forms	Institutional forms required for requesting continuing review or modification of review type.

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Eligibility Self-Assessment: Conduct a thorough analysis of the current study status against the expedited review categories, focusing particularly on Categories 8 and 9.
• Document Preparation: Compile all materials listed in Section 3.1, ensuring they are current and accurately reflect the study's status. The Risk-Benefit Reassessment Narrative should explicitly state how the study now meets the "no more than minimal risk" standard and falls within one or more expedited categories.
• IRB Pre-Submission Consultation: Engage with the IRB chair or administrator to discuss the potential transition before formal submission. This provides valuable insight into institutional preferences and potential hurdles [41].
• Formal Submission: Submit the complete application package through the institution's designated IRB submission system. As noted by UAB's IRB, there are typically no deadlines for expedited review submissions, but the application must be complete [40].
• Responsive Communication: Be prepared to respond promptly to any IRB requests for clarification or additional information, typically within 30 days to avoid withdrawal of the application [40].
• Implementation of Approval: Once approved, ensure all research team members are informed of the new review status and understand that any subsequent protocol changes require prior IRB review and approval [8] [26].

Workflow Visualization

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Quantitative Assessment of Review Consistency

A study evaluating the agreement between IRB-determined levels of review and Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) criteria found high consistency for Full Board and Expedited reviews, but notable discrepancies for exempt protocols [57]. This underscores the importance of rigorous self-assessment and documentation when seeking a transition in review type.

Table: IRB Review Agreement with OHRP Criteria (n=313 Protocols)

IRB Review Type	Number of Protocols	Agreement with OHRP Criteria	Disagreement Notes
Full Board	140	97.8%	3 protocols lacked sufficient detail for determination
Expedited	113	93.8%	-
Exempt	60	75.0%	16.7% required expedited or full board review

Troubleshooting Common Transition Challenges

• Challenge: IRB Disagreement with Risk Assessment

  • Solution: Provide detailed justification referencing specific expedited categories and submit published safety data or interim study reports supporting the minimal risk determination.

• Challenge: Ongoing Activities Beyond Specified Categories

  • Solution: For studies with mixed activities, consider whether the non-qualifying activities are minor and can be reviewed as a minor change to approved research [26].

• Challenge: Institutional Policies Restricting Expedited Review

  • Solution: Some institutions have local policies that may be more restrictive than federal regulations (e.g., not conducting expedited reviews as a matter of policy) [57]. Early consultation with the IRB is essential to understand these constraints.

Transitioning a continuing study from Full Board to Expedited Review represents a strategic opportunity to optimize ethical oversight while maintaining rigorous human subject protection. This application note has detailed the regulatory framework, eligibility criteria, and step-by-step protocols necessary to navigate this process successfully. By systematically applying these principles—ensuring the research meets the "no more than minimal risk" standard, falls within specified federal categories, and is thoroughly documented—researchers can achieve more efficient IRB review processes for eligible continuing studies. Future directions in this field include developing standardized assessment tools for risk categorization and promoting greater consistency in IRB interpretations of expedited review criteria across institutions.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play a critical role in protecting the rights and welfare of human research subjects. The expedited review process provides an efficient pathway for research activities that pose no more than minimal risk to subjects. According to FDA regulations, an IRB is "an appropriately constituted group that has been formally designated to review and monitor biomedical research involving human subjects" [17]. This formal designation requires maintenance of specific documentation and audit trails for all review activities, including those processed through expedited procedures.

The purpose of audit trail documentation in expedited review is to create a verifiable record that appropriate steps were taken to protect human subjects, even for research categories qualifying for streamlined review. Proper documentation demonstrates regulatory compliance and provides transparency for regulatory inspections. This application note details the specific documentation requirements and audit trail components for IRB expedited review approvals, with particular focus on minor changes in ongoing research protocols [17] [58].

Core Documentation Requirements

Minimum Documentation Standards

For any expedited review approval, specific core documents must be maintained in the IRB's records to establish a complete audit trail. These documents provide evidence of a thorough and compliant review process, even for minimal risk studies. The following table summarizes the essential documentation components:

Table 1: Essential Documentation for Expedited Review Approval

Document Category	Specific Elements	Regulatory Purpose	Retention Requirement
Protocol Submission Materials	Initial application form, research protocol, informed consent documents, investigator brochures, recruitment materials	Demonstrates complete submission package reviewed by IRB	At least 3 years after completion of research [17]
Reviewer Documentation	Reviewer worksheets, approval checklist, specific determinations for expedited category	Evidence that qualified reviewer conducted proper assessment	Same as above
Communication Records	Dated approval notice to investigator, any requests for modification, final approval documentation	Creates chain of custody for review decisions	Same as above
Administrative Records	IRB roster with alternate members, IRB written procedures, meeting minutes noting expedited reviews	Supports authority and composition of reviewing IRB	Same as above

Quantitative Documentation Metrics

The documentation process for expedited reviews captures specific data points that form the foundation of the audit trail. These metrics must be contemporaneously recorded to maintain compliance with FDA regulations under 21 CFR Parts 50 and 56 [17]. The following table outlines key quantitative data points required in expedited review documentation:

Table 2: Quantitative Data Points in Expedited Review Audit Trails

Data Element	Format & Standards	Recording Method	Regulatory Citation
Review Timeline	Date of receipt, date of review, date of approval decision	Automated date/time stamps	21 CFR 56.115 [17]
Personnel Identification	Unique user ID of IRB reviewer(s), IRB chair concurrence	Electronic signature or equivalent	21 CFR 56.107 [17]
Expedited Category Justification	Specific regulatory category (45 CFR 46.110)	Selection from predefined categories with justification	OHRP Decision Charts [58]
Modification Tracking	Previous version number, updated version number, change date	Version control system with incremental numbering	FDA IRB Guidance [17]

Experimental Protocols for Documentation Verification

Protocol 1: Audit Trail Integrity Validation

Objective: To verify that electronic systems used for IRB review maintain complete, unalterable audit trails that meet FDA 21 CFR Part 11 requirements for electronic records [59] [60].

Materials:

• Validated IRB electronic management system
• Standardized test protocols with predefined modification scenarios
• System validation scripts
• Access control verification tools

Methodology:

• System Configuration Verification: Confirm that the IRB electronic system is configured to automatically capture all audit trail entries without manual intervention [59].
• User Action Simulation: Execute a standardized series of review actions including protocol submission, expedited review, approval decision, and conditional approval.
• Data Capture Validation: Verify that for each action, the system captures:
  • Unique user ID of the IRB reviewer
  • Exact date and time of action using a controlled clock system
  • Specific nature of the action (creation, modification, deletion)
  • Reason for any changes to records or decisions
  • Original and new values for modified data [59] [60]
• Security Controls Testing: Validate that audit trail data is protected from unauthorized modification through role-based access controls.
• Retrieval Testing: Verify that complete audit trails can be retrieved in human-readable format for regulatory inspection.

Quality Control: Perform this validation protocol during initial system implementation, after any system upgrades, and at least annually as part of routine quality assurance.

Protocol 2: Expedited Review Documentation Compliance

Objective: To ensure all documentation for expedited reviews complies with FDA IRB regulations (21 CFR Part 56) and maintains a complete decision trail [17] [58].

Materials:

• IRB written procedures document
• Expedited review checklist
• Sample protocols qualifying for expedited review
• Documentation verification toolkit

Methodology:

• Pre-Review Documentation Assessment:
  • Verify the research protocol meets minimal risk criteria
  • Confirm the study fits one or more of the permitted categories for expedited review
  • Document the specific regulatory category justification
• Review Process Documentation:
  • Record reviewer credentials confirming authority to conduct expedited review
  • Complete expedited review worksheet with specific determinations
  • Document any required modifications before approval
• Post-Approval Documentation:
  • Generate formal approval documentation with all required elements
  • Record the approval in IRB meeting minutes (without discussion)
  • Maintain records of all communications with investigator
• Periodic Audit:
  • Select a random sample of expedited reviews quarterly
  • Verify complete documentation against checklist requirements
  • Identify and address any documentation gaps

Acceptance Criteria: Documentation package is considered complete when all elements in Table 1 are present, properly executed, and maintained in the designated IRB recordkeeping system.

Visualization of Documentation Workflows

Expedited Review Documentation Process

Documentation and Audit Trail Workflow for IRB Expedited Review

This workflow illustrates the sequential process for expedited review documentation, highlighting critical points where audit trail elements must be captured. The dashed boxes represent specific audit trail components that must be documented at each stage to maintain regulatory compliance [17] [59].

Audit Trail Data Relationships

Audit Trail Component Relationships

This diagram illustrates the five essential components that must be linked to each electronic IRB record to create a compliant audit trail. The bidirectional arrows indicate that each component must be directly traceable to the central record, while the security framework ensures the integrity of the complete audit trail [59] [60].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Documentation and Audit Trail Systems

Tool Category	Specific Solution	Function in Documentation Process	Regulatory Compliance
Electronic IRB Systems	Validated IRB management platforms	Automated capture of audit trail elements; version control	21 CFR Part 11 [59]
Document Management	Version-controlled document repositories	Maintains complete protocol history; tracks modifications	FDA IRB Guidance [17]
Digital Signature Tools	Electronic signature systems with timestamps	Provides unique user identification; non-repudiation	21 CFR 56.107 [17]
Access Control Systems	Role-based permission management	Ensures only authorized personnel can modify records	FDA Data Integrity Guidance [60]
Archive Solutions	Secure, non-rewritable storage media	Maintains records for required retention periods	21 CFR 56.115 [17]

Proper documentation and maintenance of audit trails for IRB expedited reviews are essential components of a compliant human research protection program. The protocols and guidelines presented in this application note provide a framework for ensuring that even streamlined review processes maintain the rigorous documentation standards required by FDA regulations. By implementing these detailed procedures for recording expedited review approvals, institutions can demonstrate their commitment to human subject protection while efficiently reviewing minimal risk research activities. Regular verification of these processes through the experimental protocols outlined will ensure ongoing compliance during regulatory inspections.

Within the framework of Institutional Review Board (IRB) operations, the expedited review procedure serves as a critical mechanism for reviewing certain categories of research and research modifications without convening a full board meeting. It is essential to clarify that "expedited" refers to the review process itself, not necessarily a faster timeline, and applies to research involving no more than minimal risk to human subjects [61]. This application note provides detailed protocols and scenarios for applying expedited review principles to minor modifications in ongoing research, offering researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals a structured approach to navigating this efficient review pathway.

The foundation for expedited review is established in federal regulations, specifically 45 CFR 46.110 and 21 CFR 56.110 [61] [8]. A fundamental principle is that investigators cannot request an expedited review; the determination is made exclusively by the IRB based on the nature of the research and the proposed changes [61]. Minor modifications to studies that were initially approved by a full board review often qualify for this streamlined process [61].

Principles and Regulatory Framework of Expedited Review

Definition and Eligibility Criteria

Expedited review occupies a middle ground in the pyramid of IRB review categories, situated between exempt and full board review [61]. For a research activity to be eligible for expedited review, it must satisfy two mandatory conditions [8]:

• It must present no more than minimal risk to human subjects.
• It must involve only procedures listed in one or more of the specific regulatory categories designated for expedited review.

The term "minimal risk" is formally defined as the state where "the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests" [8]. This risk assessment forms the cornerstone of the eligibility decision.

Authority and Determination

The authority to assign the expedited review pathway rests solely with the IRB. As noted by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), investigators are not permitted to make an independent determination of the review level due to potential conflicts of interest [61]. The IRB chair or one or more experienced reviewers designated by the chair perform the review [8]. While an expedited review can approve a study or require modifications, it cannot disapprove a study; disapproval is an action that may only be taken by a convened IRB [8].

Case Study Scenarios: Applying Expedited Review to Minor Modifications

The following scenarios illustrate common real-world research modifications and how the principles of expedited review are applied.

Scenario 1: Administrative and Personnel Changes

• Research Context: A Phase III clinical trial for a new drug application, already approved by the convened IRB, requires the addition of a new sub-investigator at an existing study site.
• Proposed Modification: Amendment to add a qualified clinical researcher to the study team.
• Application of Principles: This modification is classified as a minor change [61]. It does not alter the study's risk profile, protocol, or consent procedures. The change involves only administrative personnel records and is therefore eligible for expedited review. The IRB reviewer would verify the new personnel's qualifications and training before granting approval.
• Regulatory Reference: 21 CFR 56.110 [61].

Scenario 2: Amendments to Recruitment Materials

• Research Context: A behavioral study employing survey methodologies, previously approved under expedited review, is experiencing low enrollment.
• Proposed Modification: Introduction of a new online advertisement using social media platforms, with language similar to previously approved print materials.
• Application of Principles: Revisions to recruitment materials that are similar to those already approved are generally considered minor changes [61]. The IRB reviewer would assess the new advertisement for clarity, accuracy, and the absence of unduly influential language. Since the change does not increase risk to subjects and falls under an eligible category (e.g., Category 7) [61], it is appropriate for expedited review.

Scenario 3: Minor Protocol Adjustments in Device Research

• Research Context: A study of a cleared medical device used in accordance with its labeling involves collecting data through noninvasive procedures (e.g., MRI).
• Proposed Modification: A minor increase in the frequency of MRI scans, from once to twice per month, within the limits deemed safe for clinical practice.
• Application of Principles: This modification involves a procedural change that remains within the bounds of "minimal risk" and falls under an eligible expedited category (Category 4) [61] [8]. The IRB reviewer would confirm that the device remains used per its cleared labeling and that the increased frequency does not elevate risk beyond minimal. Studies intended to evaluate the safety or effectiveness of a device for a new indication would not be eligible [8].

Scenario 4: Continuing Review for Long-Term Follow-Up

• Research Context: A longitudinal cohort study on disease progression, initially approved by the full board, has permanently closed to new enrollment and all research-related interventions are complete.
• Proposed Modification: Submission for continuing review where the only remaining activity is long-term follow-up of subjects via medical record review or minimal risk surveys (e.g., quality of life).
• Application of Principles: This scenario directly matches Category 8(a) for expedited continuing review [61] [8]. The research is active only for long-term follow-up, which may include interactions involving no more than minimal risk. The IRB reviewer would verify that enrollment is closed and interventions are complete before processing the continuing review via the expedited procedure.

The following workflow diagram visualizes the decision-making process for reviewing minor modifications, integrating the scenarios described above.

Quantitative Data and Review Timelines

Efficiency in the IRB review process is critical for the timely advancement of research. Data from a case study at the University of Houston demonstrated that Lean Six Sigma methodology could significantly improve performance. The table below summarizes quantitative data related to IRB review times.

Table 1: IRB Review Timeline Metrics

Metric	Pre-Improvement Baseline	Post-Improvement Target	Data Source
Median Time for Full Board Review (U.S.)	39 days	Not Reported	[62]
Median Time for Full Board Review (University of Houston Case Study)	>50 days	~25 days (50% reduction)	[62]

The expedited review procedure, while not inherently "fast," contributes to overall system efficiency by reducing the workload of the full board. The following table outlines the specific categories of research and modifications that are eligible for this type of review.

Table 2: Expedited Review Categories Applicable to Research Modifications

Category Number	Description	Applicability to Modifications
1	Clinical studies of drugs/devices (when IND/IDE not required)	Changes to approved drug/device protocols that maintain minimal risk [61].
2	Collection of blood samples via specific methods	Modifications to blood draw volume or frequency within stated limits [61].
3	Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means	Adding new noninvasive collection methods (e.g., saliva, swabs) [61].
4	Collection of data via noninvasive procedures routinely used in clinical practice	Adding routine clinical tests (e.g., ECG, ultrasound) [61] [8].
5	Research involving materials collected for non-research purposes	Amendments to data analysis plans using existing data [61].
6	Collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings	Changes to recording protocols where privacy risks remain minimal [61].
7	Research on behavior or employing surveys, interviews, etc.	Modifications to survey instruments or interview guides [61] [8].
8	Continuing review of research previously approved by convened IRB	Applicable when specific conditions are met (e.g., closed to enrollment) [61].

Experimental Protocol: Submission and Review of Minor Modifications

Protocol Title:Submission, IRB Review, and Approval of Minor Modifications to an Approved Research Protocol under Expedited Review Procedures

Scope

This protocol applies to researchers and IRB administrators involved in the preparation, submission, and review of proposed amendments to approved human subject research protocols.

Pre-Submission Investigator Assessment

• Step 1: Determine the Nature of the Change. The investigator must assess whether the proposed change is minor or substantive. Minor changes typically include: administrative updates (e.g., adding or changing study personnel, correcting typos); revisions to recruitment materials or consent forms that use similar, previously approved language; and minor revisions to study instruments that do not alter the risk to participants [61].
• Step 2: Prepare the Amendment Submission Package. The investigator compiles all required documents, which must include:
  • A completed IRB amendment form.
  • A clean and a marked-up copy of the protocol reflecting all proposed changes.
  • Updated versions of any affected study documents (e.g., consent forms, recruitment materials, surveys).
  • For new personnel, documentation of completed human subjects protection training.
  • A cover letter summarizing the changes and a justification explaining why the modification does not increase the study's risk level.

IRB Review and Determination Process

• Step 3: IRB Administrative Review. IRB staff receive the submission and perform an initial administrative check for completeness.
• Step 4: Eligibility for Expedited Review. An IRB staff member or the Chair consults the expedited review categories [61] [8] and assesses:
  • Whether the research, as modified, still involves no more than minimal risk.
  • Whether the modified procedures fit one or more of the designated expedited categories.
  • If both criteria are met, the amendment is assigned for expedited review.
• Step 5: Expedited Review Execution. One or more experienced IRB reviewers designated by the Chair conduct the review [8]. The reviewer may:
  • Approve the amendment as submitted.
  • Require Modifications to secure approval. The reviewer stipulates the necessary changes, which may be approved administratively once made.
  • Refer the amendment to the full convened IRB if the changes are deemed substantive or if the study no longer qualifies for expedited review [8].
• Step 6: Communication of Decision. The IRB provides written notification to the Principal Investigator stating the outcome of the review. If approved, the notice will specify the approval period and include any final, stamped documents.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Components for Expedited Modification Submissions

Successfully navigating the expedited review process requires careful preparation. The following table details key components that should be included in a submission for a minor modification.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Expedited Modification Submissions

Item	Function & Purpose	Regulatory/Protocol Context
Amendment Cover Sheet	Standardized form summarizing all changes; ensures IRB receives complete information for an efficient review.	Serves as the primary administrative document for tracking and processing the modification [61].
Marked-Up Protocol	Document with tracked changes showing deletions and additions; allows reviewer to quickly comprehend the scope of changes.	Critical for demonstrating the exact nature of the modification and confirming it does not alter the core research design or increase risk [61].
Updated Informed Consent Document	Revised consent form with all new information for participants; required for any change affecting participant rights or welfare.	Mandated by FDA regulations 21 CFR 50.25; must be reviewed and approved by IRB before use [17].
Revised Recruitment Materials	Updated advertisements, flyers, or scripts; ensures all participant-facing materials are accurate and non-coercive.	Reviewed to protect subject privacy and ensure equitable selection [61].
Updated Investigator's Brochure	For drug/device studies, provides latest safety information; necessary for risk-benefit assessment.	Required by FDA for studies under an IND/IDE [17].
CVs/Training for New Personnel	Documentation of qualifications and human subjects protection training; ensures team competency.	Required to fulfill IRB's responsibility to ensure research team is appropriately expert [17].

The expedited review mechanism is a vital and efficient pathway for implementing minor modifications in ongoing research. Its application is strictly governed by federal regulations and institutional policy, hinging on the core principles of minimal risk and adherence to specific eligible categories. As demonstrated in the case studies, common administrative changes, minor protocol adjustments, and qualifying continuing reviews can be managed effectively through this process, reducing administrative burden while upholding the highest standards of human subject protection. Researchers can optimize their interactions with the IRB and facilitate timely approvals by thoroughly understanding these principles, accurately assessing the nature of their proposed changes, and submitting complete and well-justified application packages.

Conclusion

Expedited IRB review for minor changes is a powerful mechanism that balances regulatory rigor with operational efficiency, enabling researchers to adapt studies without significant delays. By thoroughly understanding the foundational principle of minimal risk, meticulously preparing submissions with clear justifications, proactively navigating potential hurdles, and validating the correct review pathway, research teams can accelerate essential protocol modifications. As biomedical research evolves, mastering this process is crucial for maintaining momentum in drug development and clinical trials, ultimately ensuring that valuable research can progress swiftly while steadfastly upholding the highest ethical standards for human subject protection.

References

• 1. Expedited Review Information - IRB - UC Davis [https://irb.ucdavis.edu/irb-review-process/expedited-review/]
• 2. Chapter 11 - Expedited Reviews - Pitt HRPO [https://www.hrpo.pitt.edu/policies-and-procedures/chapter-11-expedited-reviews]
• 3. Minor Changes to Previously Approved Research: A Study of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3443864/]
• 4. What is the definition of minimal risk? [https://research.oregonstate.edu/ori/irb/what-definition-minimal-risk]
• 5. What Is Expedited Review? [https://www.wcgclinical.com/insights/what-is-expedited-review/]
• 6. Determining Minimal Risk in Social and Behavioral Research [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217976/]
• 7. Evaluating Risks to Participants - Research A-Z [https://az.research.umich.edu/medschool/guidance/evaluating-risks-participants/]
• 8. Expedited Review Process [https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional-review-board/guidelines-policies/guidelines/expedited-review]
• 9. The Three Types of IRB Review [https://irb.lafayette.edu/the-three-types-of-irb-review/]
• 10. IRB Levels of Review - Research | Illinois State [https://research.illinoisstate.edu/ethics/human-subjects/review/]
• 11. Human Subject Protection [https://uncw.edu/myuncw/research/integrity/human-subjects.html]
• 12. Expedited Review: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office [https://irb.northwestern.edu/submitting-to-the-irb/types-of-reviews/expedited-review.html]
• 13. Earlham IRB Online Subject Pool Ethical Guidelines [https://earlham.edu/policy/earlham-irb-online-subject-pool-ethical-guidelines-2/]
• 14. Categories of Research That May Be Reviewed by ... [https://www.fda.gov/science-research/clinical-trials-and-human-subject-protection/categories-research-may-be-reviewed-institutional-review-board-irb-through-expedited-review]
• 15. IRB Post Approval | Research Compliance [https://research.rice.edu/integrity/irb/post-approval]
• 16. What Level of IRB Review Does Your Study Need? [https://www.advarra.com/resources/levels-of-irb-review-infographic/]
• 17. Institutional Review Boards Frequently Asked Questions [https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/institutional-review-boards-frequently-asked-questions]
• 18. 45 CFR 46.110 -- Expedited review procedures for certain ... [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-45/subtitle-A/subchapter-A/part-46/subpart-A/section-46.110]
• 19. IRB Expedited Reviews [https://nunm.edu/research/resources/irb/expedited-reviews/]
• 20. Comparison of FDA and HHS Human Subject Protection ... [https://www.fda.gov/science-research/good-clinical-practice-educational-materials/comparison-fda-and-hhs-human-subject-protection-regulations]
• 21. Expedited IRB Reviews Made Simple [https://www.solutionsirb.com/expedited-irb-reviews-made-simple/]
• 22. Regulatory Requirements and Guidelines for IBRs that ... [https://www.mtsu.edu/irb/ohrpexpeditedpolicy/]
• 23. Review Process - Human Research Protection Program [https://hrpp.umich.edu/irb-health-sciences-and-behavioral-sciences-hsbs/irb-review-process/]
• 24. Modifications (Amendments/Revisions) to Currently Approved ... [https://hrpp.research.virginia.edu/teams/irb-hsr/researcher-guide-irb-hsr/modifications-amendmentsrevisions-currently-approved]
• 25. Creating Modifications to Approved Research [https://division-research.brown.edu/research-cycle/conduct-research/human-subjects-research/conducting-research-after-irb/modifications]
• 26. IRB Review of Changes to Previously Approved Research [https://www.advarra.com/blog/irb-review-of-changes-to-previously-approved-research/]
• 27. Expedited Review | Duke Health Institutional Review Board [https://irb.duhs.duke.edu/policy/expedited-review]
• 28. 6 Steps To Analyze Survey Data: Methods & Tips [https://contentsquare.com/guides/surveys/analysis/]
• 29. Review Process Overview - UNC Research [https://research.unc.edu/human-research-ethics/submission-instructions/]
• 30. Medical Research: Forms & Consent Templates - Stanford IRB [https://irb.stanford.edu/for-researchers/for-medical-researchers/forms-templates]
• 31. SOP 018: Expedited Review | Office of Human Research ... [https://human.research.wvu.edu/sop-018-expedited-review]
• 32. IRB Review - Institutional Review Board [https://irb.richmond.edu/submitting-proposals/review.html]
• 33. Common Types of IRB Modifications | 2020 | IRB Blog [https://www.tc.columbia.edu/institutional-review-board/irb-blog/2020/common-types-of-irb-modifications/]
• 34. Modifications: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office [https://irb.northwestern.edu/submitting-to-the-irb/modifications/]
• 35. Common IRB Submission Errors [https://www.wright.edu/research/research-compliance/common-irb-submission-errors]
• 36. Top 10 Common Problems to Avoid with IRB Protocol ... [https://www.ohio.edu/research/compliance/human-subjects/top10]
• 37. Ten Common IRB Protocol Mistakes | Forms and Instructions [https://www.brandeis.edu/ora/hrpp/forms-instructions/application-mistakes.html]
• 38. A Process Guide to Avoiding Common Pitfalls when ... [https://www.iona.edu/offices/office-provost/institutional-review-board/submitting-application/process-guide-avoiding]
• 39. September 2025 IRB Connection Newsletter [https://hso.research.uiowa.edu/0925]
• 40. Expedited Review | Office of Research [https://www.uab.edu/research/home/expedited-review]
• 41. From Expedited or Exempt to Full Board Review [https://www.solutionsirb.com/from-expedited-or-exempt-to-full-board-review-when-and-why-it-happens/]
• 42. full board research protocols [https://www.lsuhsc.edu/administration/academic/ors/irb/full_board_research.aspx]
• 43. HAP: Human Subjects Research (IRB) [https://research.sfsu.edu/hap_IRB]
• 44. Build a Proactive, Year-Round HMDA Compliance Strategy [https://riskexec.com/blogs/proactive-hmda-compliance-strategy/]
• 45. Compliance in the Post-EO 14173 Era: A Guide to Self- ... [https://www.hrunlimitedinc.com/proactive-compliance-in-the-post-eo-14173-era-a-practical-guide-to-self-auditing/]
• 46. Bridging the Compliance Gap: Proactive Strategies for an ... [https://baldwin.com/compliance/bridging-the-compliance-gap-proactive-strategies-for-an-evolving-regulatory-landscape/]
• 47. Expedited Review - Institutional Review Board - Wayne State University [https://research.wayne.edu/irb/expedited-review]
• 48. Review Process - IRB [https://irb.ucdavis.edu/irb-review-process/]
• 49. IRB Review Times and User Satisfaction [https://www.bumc.bu.edu/irb/bumcirb/irb-review-time/]
• 50. Fall 2025 IRB Newsletter - Human Subject Research Protection [https://dhr.research.northeastern.edu/fall-2025-irb-newsletter/]
• 51. 21 CFR 56.110 -- Expedited review procedures for certain ... [https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-56/subpart-C/section-56.110]
• 52. Exempt, Expedited and Full Board Review - Pitt HRPO [https://www.hrpo.pitt.edu/exempt-expedited-and-full-board-review]
• 53. Full Committee Review - Division of Research & Innovation [https://research.wayne.edu/iacuc/fullcommitteereview]
• 54. Expedited Review - Office of the Vice Provost for Research [https://research.lehigh.edu/compliance-ethics/human-subjects-research/expedited-review]
• 55. Full Review vs. Designated Review by the IACUC - Office ... [https://umaine.edu/research-compliance/animal-care/full-review-vs-designated-review/]
• 56. Exempt vs. Expedited vs. Full Board [https://www.drake.edu/irb/guidanceforinvestigators/beforebeginning/exemptvsexpeditedvsfullboard/]
• 57. Levels of Initial Reviews - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8823949/]
• 58. IRB 101 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3186275/]
• 59. Audit Trail Requirements in Electronic GxP Systems [https://www.thefdagroup.com/blog/audit-trail-requirements-in-electronic-gxp-systems-a-quick-guide]
• 60. Navigating Audit Trail Review Regulations in Clinical ... [https://www.quanticate.com/blog/audit-trail-review]
• 61. | Georgetown Expedited Services | Georgetown... Review Research [https://researchservices.georgetown.edu/irb-knowledge-center/expedited-review/]
• 62. Reducing the Time for IRB Reviews: A Case Study [https://www.srainternational.org/blogs/martha-jack/2017/09/15/reducing-the-time-for-irb-reviews]