What actions can a reviewer conducting an expedited review take regarding a research protocol?

A reviewer conducting an expedited review has a variety of options when evaluating a research protocol. The ability to approve the research is a fundamental part of the review process, as it signifies that the protocol meets the necessary ethical and regulatory standards for expedited review.

Disapproving the research is also within the reviewer's authority. If the reviewer identifies concerns about the ethical implications, risks to participants, or compliance with regulations, they have the obligation to disapprove the study to protect the wellbeing of the participants and ensure adherence to ethical standards.

Additionally, requesting changes to the informed consent form is an important action the reviewer can take. This aspect is crucial because informed consent must adequately inform participants about the study, including risks, benefits, and procedures. If the reviewer finds that the informed consent form lacks clarity or completeness, they can request revisions to enhance participant understanding and ensure ethical compliance.

Thus, all these actions—approving, disapproving, and requesting changes—are essential functions of a reviewer in the expedited review process, confirming the answer is comprehensive and fits the responsibilities typical of a reviewer in human research protection.