Site growth

When a sponsor goes silent after feasibility

By TrialNotice · Updated
Clinical research coordinator filling out a feasibility questionnaire on a laptop with a patient database report beside her
Short answerSponsors often go silent after feasibility because they survey far more sites than they select, timelines shift, or the study is delayed or cancelled. Follow up once at about two weeks with a short, specific note, then let it go. To be chosen next time, make your estimate credible with real data, show patient sources, and keep the relationship warm between studies.

Why do sponsors go quiet?

  • They survey more sites than they need. The average Phase III trial now uses 106 sites, up from 65 in 2020 (Bourne Partners, citing Tufts CSDD), and sponsors cast a wider net still at feasibility.
  • Studies move. Sites have seen elevated reprioritizations and cancellations over the past 12 to 24 months (Bourne Partners).
  • Selection is uncertain on their side too. About 40% of North American sites sponsors look to engage never activate (Clinical Trial Vanguard), so they over recruit sites.
  • Your estimate looked like the others. Sponsors discount site estimates; Getz reports even adjusted estimates are accurate less than 10% of the time by sponsor accounts (Applied Clinical Trials).

How should you follow up?

  1. Wait about two weeks after submitting.
  2. Send one short note to your contact: you remain interested, one sentence on your patient source, and an offer to answer questions.
  3. If there is no reply, stop chasing that study. Log it and move on.

How do you get chosen next time?

  • Show your math. Over half of sites say questionnaires do not represent their capabilities (Advarra); add a short note with your records count and referral sources. Use the feasibility worksheet.
  • Invite a visit. Sponsors at SCRS recommended inviting them to meet the staff and investigators (Bourne Partners).
  • Deliver on what you win. Familiar sites finish startup 9.9 weeks faster and get chosen again (Tufts CSDD).

Researchers attribute much overestimation to limited protocol information and time at feasibility (PLOS One), which is why specific, evidenced answers stand out.

What is the strongest feasibility answer?

A named patient source. "We have referral relationships with 14 rheumatology and primary care practices within 20 miles, which referred patients on our last two studies" beats any percentage. Building those relationships between studies is how sites turn silence into selection.

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. Bourne Partners, "Update on the Fundamentals of Clinical Trial Sites" (SCRS Global Site Solutions Summit takeaways, October 2025)
  2. Clinical Trial Vanguard, "Tufts CSDD: New Insights on The Clinical Trial Industry" (SCOPE 2024)
  3. Getz K., "Is Investigative Site Feasibility Feasible?" Applied Clinical Trials
  4. Advarra, "Modernizing Site Feasibility and Selection"
  5. "Enhancing site selection strategies in clinical trial recruitment using real world data modeling," PLOS One
  6. Tufts CSDD, first comprehensive clinical site initiation benchmark (2018), via GlobeNewswire

Keep reading

Two clinical research site staff members reviewing a growth plan together in a bright office
Site growth

How to grow a clinical research site: a practical playbook

Research sites grow by building a record sponsors can verify: enrollment, startup speed, and screen failure. Here is what the data says about site growth, why sponsors reuse sites, and a six step playbook.

 Research site director presenting enrollment results to sponsor representatives across a conference table
Site growth

How research sites get more studies from sponsors and CROs

Sponsors award more studies to sites that enroll reliably, start fast, and forecast honestly. Here is how sponsors choose, why new sites face a slower path, and what a site can do to win repeat work.

 Sponsor clinical operations team reviewing site maps and performance charts on a large screen
Site growth

How sponsors and CROs select clinical trial sites

Sponsors shortlist sites with historical data and epidemiology, send feasibility questionnaires, then choose on patient access, past enrollment, and startup speed. Here is the process, how it evolved, and what it means for sites.