For sponsors and CROs, the gap between protocol design and trial execution often hinges on site performance. As clinical trials become more complex, enrollment targets become more challenging to achieve, and cost pressures intensify, traditional oversight models often fall short. What is needed is a proactive, metric-driven approach that strengthens site partnerships, reduces risk, and accelerates delivery, grounding decisions in evidence-based recommendations.
This article introduces a proven framework for evaluating site performance across three critical domains – enrollment, quality, and operations – supported by real-world benchmarks that enable risk detection, targeted coaching, and continuous improvement.
Enrollment as the Leading Driver of Timelines and Cost
Patient enrollment is the most significant determinant of trial success, and the most common source of delay and cost. Most studies still miss enrollment targets, with underperforming sites driving overruns. Enrollment metrics should be viewed as leading indicators of feasibility, outreach, and engagement. Used proactively, they enable intervention, targeted coaching, and sustained site performance.
1. Accrual Rate
Accrual rate (i.e., the number of patients a site enrolls over time relative to its potential) is a key indicator of site performance. Slow enrollment often signals issues with feasibility, outreach, or engagement, and even modest shortfalls can cascade into delays, higher costs, and reduced statistical power.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Roughly 80 percent of trials fail to meet their original enrollment timelines.1
- Delays in enrollment are cited as the leading cause of schedule slippage.1
- Half of activated sites under-enroll or fail to enroll a single patient.2
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Set realistic, site-specific forecasts grounded in past performance, catchment analysis, and protocol burden. Site networks with strategic footprints in high-prevalence regions and access to diverse patient databases are better positioned to deliver representative, efficient enrollment.
- Track rolling averages (e.g., 3-month composites) instead of one-off monthly numbers to smooth volatility and reveal true trends.
- Flag underperforming sites early (e.g., >20 percent below forecast) and deploy targeted interventions such as recruitment support, retraining, or enhanced outreach.
Quality Metrics as Risk Detectors
Quality is the safeguard that protects trials from rework, regulatory risk, and compromised data integrity. Rather than serving as retrospective scorecards, quality metrics function as warning signals, triggering coaching, oversight, and remediation before minor issues escalate into major setbacks.
1. Protocol Deviations & Violations
Protocol deviations, tracked as a severity-weighted rate (e.g., per 100 patient visits) at the site level, are among the clearest indicators of underlying challenges. High deviation rates point to gaps in training, local processes, or protocol complexity. Sites that invest in consistent training and patient-centered engagement tend to maintain lower deviation rates, strengthening both scientific credibility and participant trust.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Phase 3 protocols average 119 deviations per study, affecting many participants.3
- Higher deviation rates correlate with longer trial durations.3
- Regulators treat “important deviations” that affect safety or data as red-flag events.4
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Differentiate critical from minor deviations (e.g., safety, endpoint, or reporting vs. procedural).
- Track trends over time. A rising deviation rate is a stronger risk signal than a single spike.
- Leverage deviations as root-cause data; recurring issues (e.g., missed labs, window violations) often point to training or process gaps.
- Escalate when thresholds are exceeded, applying targeted support, retraining, or process simplification.
2. Data Quality
Data quality can be tracked through query density, reopened queries, missing fields, and error trends. Poor data quality increases monitoring burden, delays database lock, and risks regulatory queries. High-performing sites demonstrate fewer queries (e.g., errors, inconsistencies, missing data) per case report form and faster query resolution, enabling smoother data lock readiness.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Top-performing sites average fewer than one query per Case Report Form (CRF).5
- Poor query management and data inconsistency are cited as drivers of database lock delays.6
- Unresolved queries are flagged as bottlenecks in trial execution.6
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Measure both quantity and quality (e.g., query density, percent reopened, timeliness).
- Flag outliers, CRFs or subjects with unusually high queries, for targeted review.
- Run periodic data health checks with site and data teams to address recurring errors (e.g., unit mismatches, date logic).
- Automate edit checks upstream to catch inconsistencies early and reduce rework.
3. Adverse Events (AEs & Serious AEs)
Adverse event reporting normalized by exposure time or visit count is central to safeguarding patients and evaluating the risk–benefit of a product. Wide variability across sites can indicate under-reporting (missed safety signals) or over-reporting (noise and misclassification), either of which undermines confidence in the dataset. Robust AE oversight requires standard definitions, proactive monitoring, and real-time analytics to ensure consistent, reliable reporting.
Benchmark/Evidence
- 46 percent of published trial reports include AE information vs. 95 percent of unpublished CRFs.7
- One-third of randomized clinical trials restrict harms reporting to partial or selective data.8
- A 2023 review found no trials achieved high-quality AE reporting; most were rated moderate (61 percent) or low (34 percent).9,10,11
- CONSORT-Harms guidance emphasizes standardized collection and complete reporting as critical to mitigating bias and ensuring transparency.12,13
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Benchmark AE/SAE rates by arm and exposure time; investigate unusually low (under-reporting) or high (classification drift) outliers.
- Standardize definitions and reporting through training and reinforced CRF/eCRF checks, aligned with CONSORT-Harms guidance.10,11
- Use advanced monitoring (e.g., centralized/Bayesian) to detect site-level anomalies and trigger early coaching.12,13
- Audit and reconcile regularly across electronic data capture, medical monitoring, and pharmacovigilance to ensure completeness before database lock.
Turning Site Operations into a Competitive Advantage
Operational execution determines whether scientific findings move from data collection to actionable results. Even high-performing sites can become bottlenecks when operational friction goes unchecked. For sponsors and CROs, timeline metrics serve as dynamic process indicators, revealing where execution is stalling and where targeted support can help keep the trial engine running.
1. Query Resolution Time
Query resolution time (i.e., the average number of days required to close a clinical query) is a critical driver of trial efficiency. Prolonged resolution cycles delay database lock, increase monitoring burden, and inflate oversight costs. As a result, query management often determines whether late-stage milestones are achieved on schedule or slip by weeks.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Query resolution time is a key performance metric in clinical data management.
- While actual turnaround varies by study and site, a common rule of thumb is to resolve critical queries within 5–10 business days to avoid downstream delays.
- Prolonged query resolution is associated with database lock delays of up to 30 percent in multicenter studies.14
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Monitor both mean and median resolution times, escalate outliers, and use automated edit checks with centralized monitoring to shorten cycles.
2. Patient Retention / Completion Rate
The percentage of enrolled participants who complete the study protocol is as important as initial enrollment. High dropout rates erode statistical power and increase the risk of attrition bias, undermining the reliability of study outcomes.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Across therapeutic areas, clinical trial attrition averages 19–30 percent, with oncology trials at the upper end.15,16
- Every 5 percent increase in dropout can reduce statistical power by more than 10 percent, often forcing expensive over-enrollment to maintain validity.17
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Deploy proactive retention programs (e.g., engagement platforms, flexible scheduling), monitor early withdrawal signals, and use midpoint reviews to identify at-risk participants.
3. Site Activation
Site activation time is the duration from site selection to full readiness for enrollment, encompassing regulatory approval, contract execution, and the initiation visit. Delays at this stage can stall trial momentum and compress enrollment timelines downstream.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Median site activation times range from ~82 days in pediatric studies to >230 days in broader Phase 2–3 trials.18,19
- The most common bottlenecks are contract negotiations and Institutional Review Board/ethics approvals, which extend timelines beyond initial projections.20
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Standardize contracts and parallelize workflows (regulatory and financial), with weekly milestone tracking to flag slowdowns.
- Leverage harmonized site networks to streamline activation timelines and build predictability without compromising rigor.
4. Last Patient Last Visit (LPLV) → Database Lock
Cycle time from the last patient’s final visit to database lock is a critical measure of end-stage trial efficiency. This interval reflects the effectiveness of downstream processes (e.g., data cleaning, query resolution, and reconciliation) in managing data.
Benchmark/Evidence
- Median LPLV-to-lock times are ~36 days in Phase 2–3 studies, while high-performing trials achieve <20 days.14
- Each day of delay at this stage can cost an estimated $600,000–$8 million in lost revenue opportunity, underscoring the value of real-time data cleaning and proactive query management.21
Evidence-Based Recommendations
- Adopt real-time data cleaning approaches; enforce “clean as you go” standards; monitor cycle time trends across sites to identify those requiring targeted intervention.
Key Insight
Metrics are collaborative levers. Paired with inclusive partnerships, strategic site networks, and diverse populations, they drive speed, data integrity, and equity in clinical development.
How Sponsors Succeed with the Right Site Network
At the Alliance Clinical Network, we deliver results through:
- Inclusive planning aligned with disease prevalence
- Balanced site footprints across academic and community settings
- Patient-first processes that reduce burden and improve retention
- Performance tracking to surface barriers early
1 Brøgger-Mikkelsen M, Ali Z, Zibert J, Andersen A, Thomsen S. Online Patient Recruitment in Clinical Trials: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(11):e22179
2 Getz, K. (2012, May 1). Enrollment Performance: Weighing the “Facts”. Applied Clinical Trials Online.
3 Getz, K.A., Stergiopoulos, S., Short, M. et al. The Impact of Protocol Amendments on Clinical Trial Performance and Cost. Ther Innov Regul Sci 50, 436–441 (2016).
4 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Guidance for industry: Oversight of clinical investigations — A risk-based approach to monitoring.
5 Khatawkar S, Bhatt A, Shetty R, Dsilva P. Analysis of data query as parameter of quality. Perspect Clin Res. 2014 Jul;5(3):121-4.
6 Tolmie, E.P., Dinnett, E.M., Ronald, E.S. et al. Clinical Trials: Minimising source data queries to streamline endpoint adjudication in a large multi-national trial. Trials 12, 112 (2011).
7 Golder, S., Loke, Y. K., & Wright, K. (2016). Reporting of adverse events in published and unpublished studies of health care interventions: A systematic review. PLOS Medicine, 13(9), e1002127.
8 Pitrou, I., Boutron, I., Ahmad, N., & Ravaud, P. (2009). Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(19), 1756–1761.
9 Madi K, Flumian C, Olivier P, Sommet A, Montastruc F. Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review. BMJ Medicine. 2023;2:e000352.
10 Junqueira, D. R., Altman, D. G., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2023). CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 157, 25–42.
11 Ioannidis, J. P. A., Evans, S. J. W., Gøtzsche, P. C., et al. (2004). Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141(10), 781–788.
12 Barmaz, Y., Ménard, T. Bayesian Modeling for the Detection of Adverse Events Underreporting in Clinical Trials. Drug Saf 44, 949–955 (2021).
13 Koneswarakantha, B., Adyanthaya, R., Emerson, J. et al. An Open-Source R Package for Detection of Adverse Events Under-Reporting in Clinical Trials: Implementation and Validation by the IMPALA (Inter coMPany quALity Analytics) Consortium. Ther Innov Regul Sci 58, 591–599 (2024).
14 Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development & Veeva Systems. (2017). 2017 eClinical landscape study: Impact of database release timing on trial timelines [White paper].
15 Gillies K, Kearney A, Keenan C, Treweek S, Hudson J, Brueton VC, Conway T, Hunter A, Murphy L, Carr PJ, Rait G, Manson P, Aceves-Martins M. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 3.
16 Hillman SL, Jatoi A, Strand CA, Perlmutter J, George S, Mandrekar SJ. Rates of and Factors Associated With Patient Withdrawal of Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(8):1041–1047.
17 Bell, M. L., Kenward, M. G., Fairclough, D. L., & Horton, N. J. (2013). Differential dropout and bias in randomised controlled trials: When it matters and when it may not. BMJ, 346, e8668.
18 Bouzoukas, A. E., Olson, R., Sellers, M. A., Becker, M. L., et al. (2023). Mechanisms to expedite pediatric clinical trial site activation. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 130, 107185.
19 Crosby, S., Malavisi, A., Huang, L., Jan, S., Holden, R., et al. (2023). Factors influencing the time to ethics and governance approvals for clinical trials: A retrospective cross-sectional survey. Trials, 24, 779.
20 Lai, J., Forney, L., Brinton, D.L. et al. Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 55, 212–227 (2021).
21 Smith, Z.P., DiMasi, J.A. & Getz, K.A. New Estimates on the Cost of a Delay Day in Drug Development. Ther Innov Regul Sci 58, 855–862 (2024).
