Smart Sites, Strong Studies, Success Secured

Selecting the right investigator sites directly influences enrolment timelines, data quality, study costs, and overall trial delivery. Poor site selection is a major contributor to delays—recruitment difficulties account for up to 45% of study delays, and more than 35% of sites fail to meet their own enrolment projections, ultimately increasing development costs and timelines

Key considerations include site infrastructure, PI experience and engagement, staffing levels, past performance in similar trials, patient availability, local disease demographics, competing trials, and start‑up cycle times. Sites specialising in the target disease tend to recruit more effectively and implement complex protocols more successfully

Not entirely. While feasibility questionnaires help gather data, they are often over‑optimistic, subjective, or incomplete. Sponsors routinely reduce site‑stated recruitment projections by over 75% because historical data show that feasibility estimates frequently fail to predict actual performance. A feasibility assessment should therefore be supplemented with site visits and deeper validation

Selection visits allow Sponsors/CROs to verify the accuracy of feasibility data, assess operational capabilities, evaluate staff engagement, check patient access, and build relationships. These visits help confirm that the site can realistically deliver on timelines and enrolment commitments, especially for complex protocols where operational teams may lack clarity

While objective scoring systems, data matrices, and feasibility tools provide structure, site selection still requires judgment, experience, and interpretation of subjective signals—such as staff motivation, team communication, and cultural or operational nuances. No single process works for every trial, and clinical project managers often rely on both data and intuition to choose sites most likely to perform