ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2025
Frontier sites in clinical trials: Opportunities, challenges, and models.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical trials industry faces a growing capacity gap driven by an increasing number of studies combined with site and staff shortages. The Site Enablement League (SEL) Task Force on Frontier Sites was established to explore the potential of non-traditional research sites-termed "frontier sites"-to address these issues by expanding access to underserved populations and embedding clinical research in community settings. Methods: The task force defined frontier sites and conducted a survey to gather perspectives on their benefits, challenges, and support needs. Twenty-nine valid survey responses were collected. Respondents self-identified as having direct experience with frontier sites ("experienced respondents") or answered based on their perception of working with frontier sites ("perception respondents"). Free-text responses were coded into categories and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: Access to new participant populations was the most cited benefit, and experienced respondents noted additional gains in site engagement and education. Operational infrastructure deficiencies were the primary challenge identified by both experienced and perception respondents. Experienced respondents highlighted greater concerns about compliance and community resistance. The primary support need identified was enhanced operational support and quality oversight. Differences between experienced and perception respondent groups suggested the need for broader industry education. Conclusion: Frontier sites offer significant promise for increasing research capacity and diversity, but require substantial operational, educational, and community engagement support. These survey findings provide a foundation for shared understanding across the industry. From that foundation the industry can work to develop a playbook to guide the successful integration of frontier sites into clinical trial operations.
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.