What real-world data reveals about cost-effective site selection
For many clinical trial sponsors and CROs, site budgets remain a top priority — and understandably so. Trial costs are high, timelines are tight, and pressure to stay lean has never been greater.
But here’s the reality: sites with the lowest budgets aren’t always the most cost-effective. In fact, they often end up being the most expensive in the long run.
A 2023 study by Michelle Tew and colleagues [1] looked at the cost per randomized patient across different clinical trial sites. The findings were clear:
- Costs ranged from $74 to $797 per randomized patient
- More experienced, better-staffed sites recruited faster — and cheaper
- The lowest-cost sites often had the slowest enrollment, leading to delays and inflated per-patient costs over time
So why does this happen? And how can you choose clinical trial sites that balance both cost and performance?
Let’s break it down.
The Hidden Cost of “Cheap” Sites
It’s easy to be drawn to a site with a low startup fee or minimal per-patient cost. But that number only tells part of the story.
A site that promises enrollment for $100/patient — but recruits just one patient in 6 months — ultimately costs more than a site that charges $500/patient and enrolls quickly and consistently.
Enrollment speed, staff capacity, and infrastructure matter. So does the site’s experience in your therapeutic area and ability to execute your protocol without excessive support or hand-holding.
Real-World Data: Budget ≠ Performance
In Tew’s study, higher-performing sites had stronger research infrastructure, more trial experience, and better staff retention — all key drivers of trial success.
These sites:
- Enrolled more patients faster
- Had lower total cost per successful enrollment
- Required less oversight and fewer protocol deviations
This is where sponsors often lose time and money: by prioritizing low-cost contracts over quality site performance.
What Sponsors Should Be Optimizing Instead
When you're figuring out how to find sites for clinical trials, it's time to shift your focus:
Instead of asking:
“How can we find the cheapest site?”
Ask:
“Which sites can deliver quality data quickly and consistently — and at a fair cost?”
The answer lies in improving your site feasibility assessments and adopting tools that highlight both cost and performance metrics.
Streamlining Site Selection with Better Data
Choosing the right site doesn’t have to be a gamble. At Intune, we’ve built a smarter way to do it.
Our platform combines:
- Automated matching for clinical trial sites based on trial requirements
- Performance histories on enrollment speed, experience, and regulatory compliance
- Cost-performance heatmaps, so you can see which sites offer the best value — not just the lowest price
This allows sponsors and CROs to make better, faster decisions — without overspending or overextending timelines.
What You Can Do Now
If you’re planning your next trial, here are a few practical tips for choosing clinical trial sites:
- Look beyond per-patient cost — ask about historical enrollment rates and timelines
- Use tools that automate and streamline site selection, not just internal lists
- Evaluate whether a site’s budget aligns with its actual capabilities
- Leverage clinical trial enrollment strategies that pair feasibility with speed
- Compare cost-performance heatmaps to get a full picture before contracting
Final Thought
In clinical research, the cheapest site can easily become the most expensive — if it can’t recruit, communicate, or deliver.
The best sites aren’t always the most expensive either — they’re the ones that offer true value: speed, quality, and partnership.
Ready to find your best-fit sites?
Explore Intune’s cost-performance metrics InSite ScoreTM and discover how to streamline your site selection with confidence.
Sources:
[1] Tew, M., et al. (2023). Cost variation in clinical trial site performance: a cross-trial analysis. [BMJ Global Health]
