Why smarter site selection is critical to study success in 2025
Clinical trials are more complex, global, and competitive than ever. Yet one of the most persistent challenges remains unchanged: finding the right clinical trial site.
Despite advances in trial design and technology, site selection continues to be a leading cause of delays, cost overruns, and missed enrollment targets. According to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, nearly 40% of sites selected for a clinical trial fail to enroll a single patient [1]. And across the board, approximately 85% of clinical trials fail to meet their enrollment timelines [2].
For sponsors, CROs, and clinical operations teams, these failures are not just logistical issues — they’re strategic vulnerabilities.
So how do we fix it?
Rethinking What “The Right Site” Really Means
Traditionally, site selection has often prioritized convenience or familiarity:
- Sites the sponsor or CRO has worked with before
- Sites located near the sponsor’s geographic focus
- Sites that responded quickly to feasibility surveys
But in today’s increasingly complex research landscape, those criteria are not enough.
Successful site selection should focus on:
- Therapeutic area experience and historical enrollment performance
- Access to the target patient population
- Qualified, trained research staff and available infrastructure
- Clear and reliable communication with sponsor/CRO teams
- Regulatory track record and audit readiness
The site that checks all these boxes may not always be in your existing network — which is why expanding visibility is key.
Tap Into a Global Clinical Trial Network
Clinical research is no longer confined to major academic centers or large cities. Emerging markets and previously untapped community sites are increasingly capable of delivering both speed and quality.
Expanding your reach across a global clinical trial network can help you:
- Diversify enrollment
- Access niche indications or rare disease populations
- Reduce over-reliance on high-burden sites
- Identify high-performing but previously underutilized research teams
The challenge, of course, is identifying these sites in a meaningful and time-efficient way.
Move Beyond Spreadsheets and Manual Outreach
Site selection today is still far too dependent on manual feasibility surveys, outdated spreadsheets, and internal contact lists. This process can take months, delay study start-up, and still result in underperforming sites.
A 2022 report by the Avoca Group found that 75% of sponsors lack confidence in the data they use to select sites [3]. In addition, survey-based feasibility is highly subjective — and prone to overreporting of capabilities.
Modern platforms like Intune Bio are helping solve this by enabling:
- Verified site profiles with historical trial performance
- Filters based on indication, region, capacity, and regulatory standing
- Faster feasibility responses and pre-qualified matches
Instead of chasing sites or relying on familiarity, sponsors can now find sites that are objectively ready to deliver.
Don’t Overlook the Human Side of Site Selection
While technology and data are essential, successful site partnerships still depend on human factors.
A site with all the right infrastructure can still derail a study if communication is poor, staff are overextended, or they lack full protocol understanding. Studies have shown that strong sponsor-site collaboration directly correlates with better performance and lower deviation rates [4].
Sponsors should prioritize:
- Transparent communication
- Clear expectations for timelines, training, and deliverables
- Mutual respect and long-term relationship building
In other words, site selection is also about trust.
Final Thoughts: Site Selection Should Be a Strategic Advantage — Not a Bottleneck
Clinical trials are too expensive, too important, and too complex to risk on outdated selection methods.
Whether you’re running a Phase I trial in oncology or managing a global Phase III vaccine study, site selection should be a strategic decision supported by real-world data, not a shot in the dark.
At Intune, we’ve seen what happens when site selection works — and what it costs when it doesn’t. That’s why we’re building tools that help you:
- Post your trial
- Get matched with verified global sites
- Compare proposals and move faster
Let’s make site selection one of the easiest parts of launching a trial — not the most frustrating.
Sources:
[1] Tufts CSDD. Clinical Trials: The Hidden Costs of Poor Site Selection. https://csdd.tufts.edu
[2] BMJ Open (2018). Recruitment and retention rates in randomized trials: a systematic review. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/6/e020276
[3] Avoca Group (2022). Site Feasibility and Selection Benchmarking Report
[4] Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI). Improving Site Selection and Performance. https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org
Get in touch or post your first trial today — and finally make site selection feel like the easiest part of your study.
