Benchmarks and tools

Site activation and study startup benchmarks

By TrialNotice · Updated
Clinical research coordinator welcoming the first study patient at a research clinic entrance
Short answerTufts CSDD measured 31.4 weeks from site identification to startup completion, a month longer than a decade earlier. Repeat or familiar sites finish initiation 9.9 weeks faster than new ones, and 28% of engaged sites are new relationships. Only 62% of North American sites that sponsors engage go on to activate.
Bar chart showing 31.4 weeks from site identification to startup completion and 9.9 weeks saved at repeat sites
StatisticFigureSource
Site identification to startup completion31.4 weeksTufts CSDD
Change vs 10 years earlierAbout one month longerTufts CSDD
Time saved by repeat or familiar sites9.9 weeksTufts CSDD
Engaged sites that are new relationships28%Tufts CSDD
North American site activation rate62%Tufts CSDD via Clinical Trial Vanguard
Fastest site type to first patient inPhysician practicesApplied Clinical Trials
Longest therapeutic areas to first patient inOncology and CNSApplied Clinical Trials
Most variable startup intervalSite initiation to first patient inApplied Clinical Trials

Is startup getting faster?

Not by these measures. Getz summarized the 2018 benchmark by saying the cycle is not getting any faster (Clinical Leader). Tufts has continued benchmarking activation and enrollment across 2012, 2019, and 2023 (PubMed).

Which part does a site control?

The stretch from site initiation to first patient in, which is also the most variable. Sites that do recruitment work during startup, identifying candidates and briefing referring physicians, have patients ready when the initiation visit ends. See how to reach first patient in faster.

Get your study in front of the right local physicians

TrialNotice builds a physician referral pipeline around one active study. We identify relevant local physicians within driving distance of your site, send study aligned direct mail, follow up by email and LinkedIn, track engagement with recipient level QR codes, and route warm responses into your site team's workflow.

Talk to TrialNotice

Sources

  1. Tufts CSDD, first comprehensive clinical site initiation benchmark (2018), via GlobeNewswire
  2. Applied Clinical Trials, "New Benchmarks for Trial Initiation Activities" (Tufts CSDD)
  3. Clinical Trial Vanguard, "Tufts CSDD: New Insights on The Clinical Trial Industry" (SCOPE 2024)
  4. Lamberti M.J. et al., "Benchmarking Site Activation and Patient Enrollment," Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science, PubMed
  5. Clinical Leader, "Why Is Study Start Up Still So Inefficient?" (interview with Ken Getz, Tufts CSDD)

Keep reading

Research site manager looking at a monitor showing an enrollment bar chart falling below a red target line
Benchmarks and tools

Clinical trial enrollment statistics: the complete reference

The verified numbers on site enrollment: how many sites miss targets, how enrollment concentrates, screen failure, dropout, activation, and protocol complexity. Every figure links to its original source.

 Hands sorting patient folders into green tabbed and amber tabbed stacks on an oak desk
Benchmarks and tools

Screen failure rates by therapeutic area: reference data

Published screen failure benchmarks: 36.3% across therapeutic areas, 57% in CNS, and 70 to 80% in MASH. Plus how to calculate your own rate and use it in budgets and forecasts.

 Clinical research coordinator in a rust sweater smiling on a phone call by an office window with autumn trees outside
Benchmarks and tools

Clinical research site workforce statistics

Verified data on site staffing: turnover of 35 to 61%, 85% of departing staff going to sponsors and CROs, 17.5 training hours per study per month, and investigator turnover.