How we answer feasibility in 48 hours (and why most sites can't)

Ask a feasibility manager their least favorite part of the job and you will hear the same answer: waiting. Send a questionnaire to twenty sites and half go quiet for two weeks. A few come back with numbers so optimistic you discount them on sight. We built our feasibility process to be the exception on both counts.

Why we can be fast

Speed in feasibility is not heroics. It is preparation. We maintain current baseline volumes for every investigator in the network: how many moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients, how many Norwood IV to V hair loss patients, how many uncontrolled asthmatics. When a protocol synopsis arrives, we are matching against data we already have, not launching a chart review from zero.

Why our numbers are smaller than you expect

Most inflated feasibility comes from one methodological mistake: applying eligibility criteria simultaneously instead of sequentially. We run every estimate as a sequential funnel, then apply real screen failure rates by study type, and then the constraint most sites ignore entirely: coordinator capacity. A coordinator can properly run 12 to 15 screenings a month. An eligible population of 400 means nothing if the site can only process 15 candidates a month.

The result is that we would rather commit to 30 and deliver 35 than promise 50 and explain later. Sponsors who have been burned understand exactly why.

The 48-hour promise, and its escape valve

Send us a protocol synopsis and you get preliminary feasibility within 48 business hours: PI interest, estimated eligible population, a realistic enrollment range, and capability fit. And if a protocol genuinely needs more time, we say so within 4 hours instead of going quiet. In an industry where silence is the default, an honest fast no is almost as valuable as a fast yes.

Try it on your hardest protocol: trials@stryderesearch.com.