Everyone wants numbers.
Sponsors want them to justify budgets. Sites want them to prove efficiency, and participants want to understand what to expect. Data’s the backbone of clinical research. But not every number you see tells the full story.
Take enrollment speed or retention rates. These are influenced by dozens of factors: protocol design, site capacity, competing studies, even the time of year. Pinning a percentage increase on a single service may look great in a slide deck, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
The truth is, some stats can’t be proven the way they’re presented—and relying on them can create more confusion than clarity.
To prove that a service directly speeds enrollment or cuts drop-out by a certain percentage, you would need two identical trials running side by side. Same participant population, same protocol, same inclusion and exclusion criteria, same enrollment window. The only difference would be whether the service was used.
That kind of study doesn’t exist, and realistically, it never will.
That’s because enrollment and retention are complex. They’re shaped by site staff availability, the appeal of the study design, geographic reach, competing trials, and even factors as simple as weather or local school calendars.
In short: No single tool or service can be isolated as the reason enrollment moved faster or participants stayed longer.
The danger of leaning on numbers that can’t be proven is simple: they set false expectations. Sponsors risk misallocating budgets. Leadership may come to expect a “20% boost” that never materializes. Sites are left frustrated when the day-to-day realities don’t match the promise.
In an industry where credibility is everything, that kind of disconnect is costly.
The numbers that matter are the ones you can trace back to real experience.
That feedback can’t always be wrapped into a neat headline stat, but it does translate into smoother visits, fewer scheduling headaches, and data that holds up.
In other words: You may not always see it expressed as a single percentage point, but the value is clear.
Everyone wants clean numbers to take to leadership. But in clinical research especially, accuracy should matter more than the optics.
Scout focuses on outcomes you can see: participants who feel supported, sites that can focus on their work, and sponsors who get reliable data instead of early exits.
When vendors set a higher bar for what counts as evidence, the whole industry can benefit. Participants get care without added stress, sites get room to breathe, and sponsors get data they can trust.
That’d be the kind of impact you can count on. No unverifiable percentages required.
Taking away financial and logistical barriers matters more than any headline stat. Contact Scout to see how we can make it easier for your sites and participants.