Use case · site strategy
Choose sites on what they actually recruited.
A site list built from relationships and a questionnaire is a list built on optimism. Rank countries, sites and investigators on demonstrated recruitment in comparable trials, on how many competing studies are already in each catchment, and on what the geography costs.
Density, track record and competition, per catchment.
The situation
Enrolment is decided by the site list.
Most trials that miss their timeline miss it on recruitment, and most recruitment problems trace back to a site list chosen before anyone measured what those sites had actually delivered in this indication.
- Competing trials already recruiting
- Per catchment
- Investigators ranked on comparable trials
- Track record
- Geography costs from public benchmarks
- Cost band
What happens today
The list comes from relationships and a survey.
Sites are proposed because they are known, then confirmed by a questionnaire that asks them to predict their own enrolment. Neither step measures anything.
Familiar sites, not proven ones
The list starts from who the team has worked with. That is a reasonable starting point and a poor stopping point — it selects for relationship, not for recruitment in this indication.
The questionnaire measures optimism
A site estimates what it hopes to enrol. Nothing in that loop compares the estimate with what the same site delivered on a comparable study.
Competition inside the catchment is invisible
Two competing trials recruiting the same patients in the same city will halve your accrual, and that is knowable from public registries before the list is fixed.
Geography is chosen before it is costed
Country mix drives both cost and start-up time. When it is set by relationships, the budget consequence is discovered during contracting.
What you do instead
Rank the map before you commit to it.
Sites and contacts on a map
Candidate sites and investigators plotted per country, with the comparable trials each has run and what they enrolled.
Investigator selection on track record
Ranked on demonstrated participation and recruitment in comparable trials, with the disambiguation work done so two investigators with the same name are not merged.
Site density versus competition
How many comparable trials are already recruiting in each catchment — the single most under-measured input to an enrolment forecast.
Geographic prioritisation
Which countries to open, in what order, weighing recruitable pool, competition, cost and regulatory timeline together rather than one at a time.
Cost feasibility and operational benchmarks
A cost band for the design and geography, built from public operational benchmarks and stated with its derivation.
A start-up plan that follows the ranking
The Study Start-up workspace turns the ranked geography into country activation sequencing and contracting groundwork.
What runs, and who drafts
The scope for this job
Site strategy is the Where & How pillar’s home ground, but it is only meaningful on top of a cohort estimate — the number of sites you need follows from the recruitable pool, not the other way round.
Pillars involved
How it runs
From protocol to ranked geography.
Bring the protocol or synopsis
The eligibility criteria matter most here — they determine the recruitable pool that the site count has to be sized against.
The map is built and ranked
Candidate countries, sites and investigators from public registry and literature data, ranked on recruitment track record, competing-trial density and cost.
Open in the right order
Take the ranked geography into start-up: country activation sequencing, contracting groundwork, and the specific questions worth asking each candidate site.
What lands on your desk
A site list with a reason per row.
Each candidate carries the evidence that put it there — the trials the investigator ran, what they enrolled, and what else is recruiting nearby.
What lands on your desk
Ranked country and site plan + investigator evidence
- Candidate sites and investigators per country, mapped, with the comparable trials behind each ranking.
- Competing-trial density per catchment, with the specific studies already recruiting.
- A recruitable-cohort estimate the site count is sized against.
- Country prioritisation weighing pool, competition, cost and regulatory timeline together.
- An operational cost band with its public benchmarks.
- A country activation sequence and contracting groundwork, drafted for your start-up team.
Honest limits
Where this stops
What this does not do for you. Naming it here is cheaper for both of us than finding it in a procurement review.
Rankings are built from published trial participation and outcomes. They cannot see a site’s current staffing, PI departures, or an unregistered competing study.
It does not replace site outreach or qualification visits — it tells you who to approach and what to ask, and the confirmation is still a human step.
Cost bands come from public benchmarks and will not match a negotiated site budget or your internal costing model.
Investigator identity is disambiguated from public records; where identity is genuinely ambiguous the assessment says so rather than guessing.
Enrolment projections model comparable trials. They are a defensible basis for planning, not a commitment to accrual.
Questions
The ones you would ask first
Does this replace our site feasibility questionnaire?
No — it makes it worth sending. The ranking tells you which sites to approach and gives you their comparable-trial record, so the questionnaire becomes a confirmation rather than the primary evidence.
Where does the investigator data come from?
Public trial registries and literature. Investigators are disambiguated so that two people sharing a name are not merged into one track record — and where identity remains ambiguous, that is stated.
Can it tell us how many sites we need?
It sizes the site count against the recruitable cohort and the enrolment rates comparable trials achieved, and shows the working. That is a planning basis, not a guarantee.
Does it cover countries outside the US and EU?
Coverage follows the public registries, which are strongest where trials are registered and reported. The assessment states where registry coverage for a geography is thin rather than presenting a confident ranking built on little.
Build the site list on what sites delivered.
Send us the protocol or synopsis. We’ll return a ranked country and site plan — track record, competing-trial density and cost band — with the evidence behind every row.