• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Clinical Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Why is there such inefficiency in site selection?

Why is there such inefficiency in site selection?

December 15, 2016
CenterWatch Staff

This question is often asked about an industry deeply root­ed in paper-based, spreadsheet tools for clinical trial conduct. Study teams have continued to rely on these older tools and relation­ships with principal investigators that have developed over time to select sites, building an institu­tional knowledge about specific sites based on previous studies.

While these methods seem logi­cal, they lack verification, trans­parency and are slow, taking 3.2 months, on average, to go through the site selection process. Unfortu­nately, institutional knowledge is frequently dated and siloed within departments, and may not be rel­evant to the therapeutic area un­der investigation. Moreover, study teams are blinded to problems in­herent with this approach—name­ly, it limits opportunities to engage with new sites that could be more effective than those familiar to the study team.

For a typical multicenter study, 30% of sites selected are new, mean­ing they would not appear in ex­isting spreadsheets, thereby un­dermining the value of the older approach. With the increasing complexity of clinical trials, con­tinued reliance on older methods has resulted in various industry ini­tiatives designed to fuel widespread adoption of technology meant to improve clinical trial operations.

Purpose-built technologies uti­lizing multiple data sources provide sponsors and CROs with a data-driven approach to selecting sites most likely to enroll patients on time and on budget. This actionable intelligence removes the blinders inherent in older methods, leading to a more thoughtful and analytical method. This advances the process from identification and feasibility through to site activation.

 

Written by Guest Writer Jae Chung. Chung is the founding visionary of goBalto. A startup evangelist, he works with Rock Health to mentor healthcare technology startups. He previously co-founded Celltrion, a leading biopharmaceutical manufacturing company and was a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company.

This article was reprinted from Volume 23, Issue 12, of The CenterWatch Monthly, an industry leading publication providing hard-hitting, authoritative business and financial coverage of the clinical research space. The Action Items section features short columns  focusing on actionable or how-to advice from clinical trial professionals. To submit an Action Item, please contact editorial@centerwatch.com. Subscribe >>

Upcoming Events

  • 12Apr

    The Patient Playbook Webinar Series, Part 3 — Rethinking the Development of Participant-Centric Clinical Trial Technology

  • 25Apr

    Effective Root Cause Analysis and CAPA Investigations for Drugs, Devices and Clinical Trials

  • 26Apr

    FDA’s New Laws and Regulations: What Drug and Biologics Manufacturers Need to Know

  • 27Apr

    Califf’s FDA, 2023 and Beyond: Key Developments, Insights and Analysis

  • 17May

    2023 WCG Avoca Quality Consortium Summit

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Five Ws

    Consider the Five ‘W’s to Understand Potential Participants

  • QandA-360x240.png

    Perspectives from Smaller-Sized CROs: Q&A with Cheryle Evans

  • White House

    Trial Stakeholders Advise White House on Emergency Research Infrastructure

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Stress Levels Continue to Climb in Healthcare Workforce, Survey Finds

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing