Why Site Selection Still Fails in 2025
Clinical trials are getting more advanced, but one thing hasn't changed: many of them are still built on shaky foundations. And by that, we mean poor site selection.
Let’s start with a number that should make any sponsor pause: 40% of clinical trial sites fail to enroll even a single patient (Tufts CSDD). That’s not a typo — and it’s not just frustrating. It’s incredibly expensive.
The Real Cost of Getting Site Selection Wrong
When we talk to sponsors, the same questions keep coming up:
“Why do trials keep falling behind on enrollment?”
“Why do our top sites perform while the rest lag behind?”
“Is there a smarter way to find clinical trial sites that actually deliver?”
The truth is, the cost of selecting the wrong sites isn’t just financial — though that alone is staggering. Each day of delay can cost sponsors anywhere from $600,000 to $8 million, depending on the drug and phase (Pharmaceutical Outsourcing, 2022). That includes wasted budgets, protocol amendments, additional site recruitment, and lost opportunity.
But beyond the dollars, poor site selection means:
- Delayed market entry
- Lower data quality
- Increased burden on high-performing sites
- Frustrated teams at both the sponsor and site level
So why are so many sponsors still relying on outdated site selection processes?
It’s Not About the Number of Sites — It’s About the Right Sites
Too often, selection is based on internal lists, past relationships, or site self-reported feasibility data — and those aren't enough. Sites may overestimate their enrollment capabilities, or simply not have access to the right patients at the right time.
You wouldn’t launch a product without market data. Why launch a trial without real-world site performance data?
At Intune, we built the InStitute blog to tackle this head-on. We’re bringing both sponsors and clinical trial sites into the conversation — because successful trials need both sides in sync.
