Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Training Staff to Conduct Site Capability Assessments

Posted on digi By digi

Site capability assessments are foundational to selecting the right investigator sites for a clinical trial. However, the quality and accuracy of these assessments depend entirely on the individuals conducting them—whether Clinical Research Associates (CRAs), Feasibility Specialists, or Clinical Trial Managers. Without proper training, assessments may be inconsistent, incomplete, or non-compliant, leading to trial delays, protocol deviations, or regulatory scrutiny.
Click to read the full article.

Site Capability Assessment, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

How to Evaluate a Site’s Past Performance in Trials

Posted on digi By digi

In the competitive landscape of clinical trials, choosing the right sites can make or break a study. One of the most predictive indicators of future success is a site’s historical performance in prior trials. Regulators like the FDA and EMA expect sponsors and CROs to use past performance as part of risk-based site selection under ICH E6(R2) guidelines.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Metrics That Matter in Historical Performance Evaluation

Posted on digi By digi

Historical performance evaluation is a cornerstone of modern site feasibility processes in clinical trials. It enables sponsors and CROs to identify high-performing sites, reduce startup risks, and meet regulatory expectations. ICH E6(R2) encourages risk-based oversight, and using objective, metric-driven evaluations of previous site activity supports this mandate.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Building a Historical Site Database for Long-Term Use

Posted on digi By digi

Feasibility evaluations are often performed in silos, with site performance data stored in spreadsheets, disconnected CTMS modules, or forgotten folders. This short-term thinking results in repetitive qualification efforts, missed insights, and increased risk during site selection. A well-structured historical site database provides sponsors and CROs with a long-term, centralized repository of investigator experience, compliance trends, and enrollment metrics across multiple trials and regions.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Using Performance Data to Qualify Repeat Sites

Posted on digi By digi

As clinical trials grow more complex and global in scope, sponsors and CROs are increasingly turning to sites with which they have prior experience. Using repeat sites offers several advantages—faster contracting, familiarity with systems, and trusted investigators. However, re-engaging a site should never be automatic. Regulatory bodies, including the FDA and EMA, expect that site qualification be based on documented evidence of performance, including enrollment metrics, protocol adherence, and audit outcomes.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Red Flags in a Site’s Historical Trial Record

Posted on digi By digi

When selecting sites for a new clinical trial, evaluating historical performance is vital—but knowing what to avoid is just as important as identifying strengths. Red flags in a site’s past trial record can signal operational weaknesses, data integrity risks, or regulatory non-compliance. Ignoring these signals may lead to delays, deviations, or even sponsor audits.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Weighting Historical Data in Site Selection Algorithms

Posted on digi By digi

Historically, site selection for clinical trials was often based on investigator reputation, geographic coverage, or past experience. However, as trials become increasingly complex and regulated, sponsors and CROs now seek evidence-based, data-driven site selection strategies. One of the most powerful tools for achieving this is the use of algorithms that apply weighted scores to historical performance metrics.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Metrics for Evaluating Site Performance Across Past Trials

Posted on digi By digi

In an increasingly complex regulatory and operational environment, sponsors and CROs are under pressure to select clinical trial sites that can deliver quality data, timely enrollment, and regulatory compliance. One of the most effective methods for making informed feasibility decisions is the use of historical performance metrics—quantitative and qualitative indicators drawn from a site’s previous trial involvement.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection

Sources for Historical Performance Data

Posted on digi By digi

Feasibility assessments based solely on investigator reputation or generic questionnaire responses are no longer sufficient. Regulatory expectations under ICH E6(R2) and growing emphasis on quality-by-design demand data-driven decisions—particularly when selecting or requalifying clinical trial sites. One of the most powerful tools in this regard is historical site performance data.
Click to read the full article.

Historical Performance Review, Study Feasibility and Site Selection