• The Journal of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.122-129
• /
• 2010

Objective: To investigate institutional review boards and approved clinical trials of Oriental medical hospitals in Korea Methods: We e-mailed 16 Oriental medical hospitals a survey consisting of questions that addressed two topics, institutional review boards and the clinical trials they approved. The first part included questions about whether each hospital had an institutional review board, that board's staffing and education, reviews, and expedited reviews. The clinical trials portion covered the number and types of approved clinical trials, treatment methods, whether an investigator or a sponsor initiated the trials, diseases, time frame, and clinical trial fee. Results: We received a response to our e-mail from 14 hospitals, all of which had an institutional review board. The average number of institutional review board members was 13.57. Of these Oriental medical hospitals, 70% and 49% said that they regularly educated their institutional review board staff and clinical trial, investigators, respectively. 79% of the hospitals claimed to conduct regular reviews, and 50% said that they did so monthly. The number of approved clinical trials increased sharply from 11 in 2005 to 102 in 2008. 68% of these clinical trials were randomized, and the most-used treatment methods were herbal medicine (35%) and acupuncture (29%). The most common target diseases were circulatory (19%), urinogenital (14%), and musculoskeletal (13%) disease. Conclusions: Despite the rapid increase in clinical research in oriental medical hospitals, many more efforts including raising IRB quality, varying research diseases and increasing clinical trials in the hospitals located in non-metropolitan area, should be made.

• The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.378-387
• /
• 2019

Purpose: This article is a comprehensive review for concept clarification of critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment, which still lack a consensus and are of mixed use. Methods: Norris's method of concept clarification was used to review concepts that have no clear definition or conceptualization yet. Results: This review summarized literature from various disciplines, classified each concept based on similarities and differences, and provided hypothetic conceptual schema. Conclusion: Clinical reasoning and clinical judgment are clinical situation specific concepts, while critical thinking is a concept applied in general situations. Critical thinking is a broader concept and serves as a foundation for clinical reasoning and clinical judgment. Clinical reasoning precedes clinical judgment. Clinical judgement implies the end point or conclusion of clinical reasoning. Each of critical thinking, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment is a cognitive and affective process not a psychomotor process. The concept of clinical competency involves action taken after the cognitive processes of clinical reasoning and clinical judgment.

• Journal of Acupuncture Research
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.11-21
• /
• 2015

Objectives : To improve quality of clinical research for acupuncture and moxibustion, a guideline for clinical research protocol is needed. While developing a guideline for acupuncture and moxibustion clinical research, we reviewed the ethical and scientific aspects of protocols pointed out by the institutional review board. This will offer practical assistance to the researchers. Methods : Ethical and scientific aspects of acupuncture and moxibustion research protocols reviewed by Kyung Hee University Korean Medicine Hospital Institutional Review Board were gathered and reviewed. Results : Ethical and scientific aspects of protocol review was reported. Conclusions : The example of review will be helpful for new researchers when developing acupuncture and moxibustion clinical research protocol.

• The Journal of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.38 no.3
• /
• pp.13-29
• /
• 2017

Objectives: The objective of this review is to investigate the use of conventional Western medicine (WM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) on leg cramps. Leg cramps are the occurrence of muscular spasm in the leg muscles which occur frequently in the elderly and are frequently observed in the clinical field. Methods: Relevant clinical studies were searched from five medical databases including PubMed, KISS, RISS, OASIS, and J-STAGE. Systematic review, clinical studies, and clinical practice guideline were included in this review. Results: In total, 27 clinical studies, 9 systematic review and meta-analysis, and 1 clinical practice guideline met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were classified and analyzed according to the type of intervention. Studies on quinine and magnesium have been most studied in WM and CAM, respectively. Although quinine shows some clinical effects on leg cramps, however, the risk of side effects are suggested. In addition, magnesium failed to improve the clinically significant effects in most studies. Five case reports using Oriental herbal medicine (OHM) were included and OHMs were effective in improving leg cramps without side effects, however, the quality of evidence was low. Clinical studies on other interventions were lacking. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that there is no definite treatment standard for leg cramps until now, and there are limitations such as low level of evidence and side effects for each treatment. OHM can be an effective alternative to conventional intervention on leg cramps, therefore, related clinical studies are needed.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.33-42
• /
• 2023

In the conduct of multicenter clinical trials, multiple reviews by multiple Institutional Review Board (IRB) result in unnecessary duplication of efforts, delays and increased expenses of the trials, placing unavoidable burdens on not only investigators and sponsors but also IRBs. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic periods, as the need of multicenter clinical trials for its therapeutics and vaccines increased, a centralized IRB became more important than before in order to efficiently conduct the multicenter trials without unnecessary multiple reviews. Accordingly, government-supported central IBR as a new centralized IRB has launched to foster multicenter clinical trials while to avoid unnecessary reviews and delays and to reduce burdens of all stakeholders. However, there are still barriers to be overcome and problems to be solved in the central IRB. In this review, we introduce background and history of the central IRB and try to propose some strategies or solutions against the barriers and problems.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2021

In 2004, India began investing in the clinical trial industry; the country now boasts a 20% market share with the help of a valuable resource - the world's second largest population. The Contract Research Organization has been able to generate profits efficiently conducting clinical trials via a large pool of participants, skilled researchers, and reduced developmental costs. As the demand and sheer number of global clinical trials increased, the International Council of Harmonization-Good Clinical Practice was introduced, and the need for the Institutional Review Board increased. While the clinical trial industry in India boomed, it came at the expense of the participants' civil rights. The increased media attention regarding the ethical issues forced the Indian Supreme Court to take action. Consequently, India is the only country, by law, that specifically compensates participants suffering from injury directly resulting from participation in clinical trials. This research paper will describe and compare the relevant laws of India and Korea including compensation criteria. In addition, the ethical issues and aspects of indemnity in clinical trials will be discussed. While the clear advantage of the compensation is one of the protected rights of a clinical subject, the current system is not perfect. Furthermore, laws created to redeem ethical issues can have unintended, negative consequences.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.221-241
• /
• 2023

Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of digital therapeutics for insomnia on sleep disorders and mental health improvement compared to the control group. Methods: Following the guidelines on systematic review(PRISMA, NECA), a literature search was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, RISS, KISS, and KoreaMed using keywords. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Review Manager version 5.3 were used for risk of bias and effect size assessment. Results: Thirty eight RCT met criteria for inclusion. When compared against three control conditions, the digital therapeutics for insomnia was an effective intervention for improvement sleep disorders and mental health in comparison to waiting list and Patient-directed care with some intervention by medical staff. However, digital therapeutics for insomnia were no more effective than face-to-face CBT-I control group. Conclusion: The efficacy of digital therapeutics for insomnia was evaluated differently depending on the control group. Therefore, in phase 3 clinical trials for efficacy evaluation, it is necessary to review whether the control group has been properly established.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.1-4
• /
• 2024

The strengthening of Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) for clinical research on advanced regenerative medicine reflecting the 3 Principles of the Belmont Report (Respect, Beneficence, Justice) is very important. The research institution IRB should naturally be in charge of managing the clinical research process. And it is crucial to reinforce HRPP for the protection of research subjects in institutions conducting advanced regeneration clinical research. So, it is needed to establish a Protection System for Advanced Regenerative Medical Research Subjects composed of clinical research management communication system for advanced regenerative medicine between KAIRB (Korean Association of IRB) of research institutes and National Management Agency for Advanced Regenerative Medical Research. In advanced regenerative medicine clinical research to verify safety and efficacy of the investigational drugs to the subjects with rare and incurable diseases rather than to treat the patients, it is hoped that a management system that guarantees the scientific characteristics of research and the rights of research subjects would be well organized and operated.

• Korean Medical Education Review
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2008

Purpose : The establishment of clinical skills centers(CSCs) to facilitate the teaching and assessment of clinical skills is one of the more recent developments occurring in medical schools worldwide. The aim of this study is to review experiences of CSCs in other medical schools and learn how to design a CSC in our school. Methods : This study was undertaken in two steps. In the first step, educational activities of CSCs in 6 medical schools were reviewed. In the second step, a search for articles of journals regarding clinical skills education in CSCs was conducted. Results : The review of CSCs programs reveals variations among centers in teaching and assessment activities. However there are increasing trends of utilizing CSCs in teaching and learning in CSCs. The delivery of clinical skills is expanded by an increasing use of simulated patients and realistic simulators. Through an audio/video technology, availability of more detailed monitoring and feedback. CSCs also provide greater opportunity for assessment of communications skills, physical examination and practical procedures. Conclusions: CSCs contribute to the effectiveness in clinical teaching and assessment. Educational benefits of a CSC can be maximized by utilizing new delivery methods, implementing educational strategies and staff development programmes.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.4 no.2
• /
• pp.36-41
• /
• 2022

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate how university hospital Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Korea classify risk when reviewing clinical trial protocols. Methods: IRB experts (IRB chairman, vice chairman, IRB administrator) in the university hospitals obtaining a Human research protection program (HRPP) or IRB accreditation in Korea were asked to fill out the Google Survey from September 1, 2020 to October 10, 2020. Result: Among the 23 responder hospitals, 8 were accredited by the American Association for Human Research Protection Program (AAHRPP) and 8 were accredited by the HRPP of Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Seven were accredited by Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Asia and the Western Pacific or Korea National Institution for Bioethics Policy. Thirteen of 23 hospitals (56.5%) had 4 levels (less than minimal, low, moderate, high risk), 4 hospitals had 3 levels (less than, slightly over, over than minimal risk), 1 hospital had 5 levels (4 levels plus required data safety monitoring board), and 1 hospital had 2 levels (less than, over than minimal risk) risk classification system. Thirteen of 23 hospitals (56.5%) had difficulty classifying the risk levels of research protocols. Fourteen hospitals (60.9%) responded that different standards among hospitals for risk level determination associated with clinical trials will affect the subject protection. Six hospitals (26.1%) responded that it will not. Three hospitals (13.0%) responded that it will affect the beginning of the clinical trial. To resolve differences in standards between hospitals, 14 hospitals (60.9%) responded that either the Korean Association of IRB or MFDS needs to provide a guideline for risk level determination in clinical trials: 5 hospitals (21.7%) responded education for IRB members and researchers is needed; 3 hospitals (13.0%) responded that difference among institutions needs to be acknowledged; and 1 hospital (4.3%) responded that there needs to be communication among IRB, investigator, and sponsor. Conclusion: After conducting a nationwide survey on how IRB in university hospital determines risk during review of clinical trials, it is reasonable to use 4-level risk classification (less than minimal, low, moderate, high risk); the most utilized method among hospitals. Moreover, personal information and conflict of interest associated with clinical trials have to be considered when reviewing clinical trial protocols.