ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
Redefining feasibility in clinical trials: Collaborative approaches for improved site selection.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond prediction: an evidenced-based framework for assessing site selection decisions.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- The Potential to Leverage Real-World Data for Pediatric Clinical Trials: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Re-envisioning clinical trial design in systemic sclerosis.Expert review of clinical immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This Site Feasibility Task Force convened to assess the complex and burdensome process of site feasibility in clinical trials. The objective was to create mutual understanding of challenges and provide suggestions for improving collaboration among sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), and sites. Methods: The task force was composed of representatives from sponsors, CROs and sites (43 % Sites, 20 % Site Networks, 10 % Small/mid-size sponsors, 10 % Small/mid-size CROs, 10 % Large sponsors, 7 % Large CROs). The group collaborated to define the scope of the problem, identify challenges in the current process, and provide suggestions for improving the process. Results: The group found there is a need for better differentiation between the three main stages of feasibility, and the four sub-phases of Site Feasibility. The discussion brought to light emerging trends like early initiation of Site Feasibility and premature engagement of sites by CROs. To fully explain these challenges, the group analyzed the current practices and documented their downstream impact on clinical trial execution for all stakeholders. A list of best practices emerged naturally from this analysis. These findings are aggregated into short and actionable best practice guides. Conclusion: The task force suggests practical changes for the feasibility process and raises awareness of emerging trends and their associated risks. This awareness can begin to drive change in the site feasibility process, although industry-wide transformation will require new levels of collaboration, data standardization and automation tools. The potential benefits of evolving this process are significant and meaningful for more efficient and successful clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.