• Skip to main content
  • Skip to main content
Choose which site to search.
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Logo University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Research and Innovation: Institutional Review Board
  • UAMS Health
  • Jobs
  • Giving
  • About
    • Compliance Statement
    • Full Board Meetings
      • Committee Rosters
    • Institutional Review Board Blogs
    • Institutional Review Board Staff
    • Join the UAMS Institutional Review Board
    • Review Fees
  • CLARA
    • Access the System
    • Request a Human Subjects Research Determination
    • Start a Study
  • Templates, Training and Tools
    • Consent for Non-English Speakers
    • Events and Deviations Tables
    • Expanded Access Programs: Compassionate Use & Emergency Use
    • Human Subject Protection Training Instructions
  • Reporting to the Institutional Review Board
  • Expanded Access
  • Institutional Review Board Policies
    • Current Institutional Review Board Policies
      • 1 Principles and Authority
      • 2 Relationships
      • 3 Committee Membership
      • 4 Institutional Review Board Operations
      • 5 Records (Retired)
      • 6 Documentation
      • 7 Procedures for Study Review
      • 8 Change in Protocol
      • 9 Institutional Review Board Decisions
      • 10 Principal Investigator Responsibilities
      • 11 Appeals and Reconsiderations (retired)
      • 12 Quality Assurances
      • 13 Confidentiality
      • 14 Recruitment Practices
      • 15 Consent
      • 16 Risk / Benefit Analysis (moved)
      • 17 Special Populations
      • 18 Drugs and Devices
      • 19 Human Genetics Guidance
      • 20 Questions, Concerns, Suggestions and Complaints
    • Institutional Review Board Policy Archives
      • 1 Principles and Authority Archive
      • 2 Relationships Archive
      • 3 Committee Membership Archive
      • 4 Institutional Review Board Operations Archive
      • 5 Records Archive
      • 6 Documentation Archive
      • 7 Procedures for Study Review Archive
      • 8 Change in Protocol Archive
      • 9 Institutional Review Board Decisions Archive
      • 10 Principal Investigator Responsibilities Archive
      • 11 Appeals and Reconsiderations Archive
      • 12 Quality Assurances Archive
      • 13 Confidentiality Archive
      • 14 Recruitment Practices Archive
      • 15 Consent Archive
      • 16 Risk / Benefit Analysis Archive
      • 17 Special Populations Archive
      • 18 Drugs and Devices Archive
      • 19 Human Genetics Guidance Archive
      • 20 Questions, Concerns, Suggestions, Complaints Archive
  • Research Resources
    • Acronyms and Resources
    • FAQs
      • CITI Program FAQs
      • CLARA FAQs
      • Does my project need IRB review?
      • Prereview and Review Process FAQs
      • Reporting FAQs
      • Submission FAQs
    • Single / Central Institutional Review Board Review
  • Human Research Protection Program Plan
  1. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  2. Research and Innovation
  3. Institutional Review Board
  4. Keep the criteria for approval in mind when reviewing studies

Keep the criteria for approval in mind when reviewing studies

It can be difficult to remember, when you’re deep into the review of a complicated new submission, that there are only eight regulatory criteria for the approval of human subject research. These criteria are listed in more detail in UAMS IRB Policy 7.1 and at 45 CFR 46.111. A summary follows:

  1. Risks to subjects are minimized
  2. Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, and the importance of the knowledge that may reasonably be expected to result
  3. Selection of subjects is equitable
  4. To the extent required, informed consent will be sought
  5. To the extent required, informed consent will be documented
  6. When appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provision for monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects
  7. When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subject and to maintain the confidentiality of data
  8. When appropriate, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of subjects vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.

These criteria are derived from the ethical principles described in the Belmont Report — Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. Please keep these criteria in mind when reviewing research and drafting contingencies. Some institutions require reviewers to document the relationship to a specific criterion for each contingency they write. UAMS does not go quite that far, but we do ask that you be able to relate your proposed contingencies to one of the above requirements. Items that do not relate to one of these criteria, but that you feel may be helpful to the study team, can be documented as a “note” in CLARA rather than as a contingency. For example, you may have suggested changes to the consent form. If the proposed consent form is so deficient that criteria 4 and 5 above could not be met, those changes would be appropriately listed as contingencies. However, if you have minor editing suggestions with no impact on the overall consent process and documentation, those changes would best be listed as comments for the study team to take into account the next time the consent form is revised.

Posted by Edith Paal on September 23, 2014

Filed Under: Institutional Review Board Members

University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences LogoUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Mailing Address: 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: (501) 686-7000
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Statement
  • Legal Notices

© 2025 University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences