IRB review applications under Exempt from Full Review will be reviewed by one IRB reviewer. Where the expertise of the other members on the board is required, an additional reviewer may be called upon. For research projects approved under Exempt from Full Review, an end of research final report is not required. Studies that usually qualify to be reviewed under Exempt from Full Review are those that do not obtain data from vulnerable populations, use deception, and those that do not pose more than minimal risk to human subjects. A minimal 15 working days is required for the decision by the IRB. However, when the decision is made, the IRB will seek to inform the applicant at the earliest possible date.
The IRB will decide whether your application qualifies for Exempt from Full Review on the basis of your application as well as your answers to the Exempt from Full Review Checklist. Please note, determination of exempt from full review status is made in consideration of all materials submitted to the IRB.
Applications submitted for review under Exempt from Full Review will usually be given a decision faster than that under Full Review. Should an application be deemed as unsuitable for Exempt from Full Review, the applicants will be informed the reasons why and they may resubmit it again under Full Review, or make adequate changes to their protocol such that they may be considered for Exempt from Full Review.
Studies submitted under Exempt from Full Review need not submit an End of Research Final Report.
You may use the online questionnaire to assess if your research project qualifies for application for exempt from full review. You may submit screenshots of your answer to the online questionnaire as in place of a filled Exempt from Full Review Checklist.
Your application for IRB review under Exempt From Full Review should contain:
*All attachments and supplementary materials containing identifying information of investigators should be submitted as .doc. Files. The IRB will attempt to remove or mask identifying information about the investigators to enable a double-blind process in the ethics review.
Providing information at this level of detail is necessary so that the Committee can make an informed decision about potential risks to participants. Insufficient information provided may result in clarifications needed or a deferred decision.