How we research clinical trial platforms
Sudova Agent publishes comparisons and capability guides for RTSM and adjacent eClinical systems. This page explains where the information comes from, what criteria we apply, and where the limits of our coverage sit, so a reader can judge how much weight to put on anything here.
Every live reading, one panel, before the vial moves.
A sponsor team reading a platform comparison usually already has a protocol, a set of sites and a supply plan. What it does not have is a settled view of which RTSM build handles mid-study arm changes, or which integrated suite keeps the documents attached to the supply. That gap is what this page describes how we fill, and how far that filling goes.
What we read and what we do not
Our platform coverage is built from publicly available vendor materials, current market reporting, and platform documentation that is open to any reader. We do not rely on private briefings, paid placements, or unpublished roadmaps. Where a detail comes only from a vendor's own page, we present it as vendor-stated rather than as an established fact.
This distinction matters most for capability claims, because every vendor describes its own product favorably. A feature list on a product site tells you what the vendor chose to advertise, not what a study team sees on day three of a go-live. When we cannot find an independent reading of the same capability, we say so within the entry rather than smoothing it over.
Market reporting enters the picture for anything a vendor does not publish: consolidation between RTSM and broader eClinical vendors, the arrival of an integrated suite into an account that previously ran separate systems, and the way service teams change when those combinations settle. We cite the year and the source type for anything time-bound, so a reader can tell how fresh a claim is without opening a second tab.
Public vendor material
Datasheets, product pages, published documentation, and open release notes.
Market reporting
Trade press and analyst notes that describe vendor moves in the open.
Not used
Private briefings, paid placements, non-public roadmaps.
The criteria we apply
Comparisons here are organized around a small set of criteria that actually change a study: workflow coverage, service model, mid-study change handling, integration surface, and participant-facing capability. We chose these because they recur in sponsor evaluations and because they can be discussed concretely. A module list is not a criterion. Neither is a satisfaction score without a stated methodology behind it. Where we cannot verify something, we say so instead of filling the gap with a reasonable-sounding number.
Workflow coverage
Which steps of the supply and randomisation work a single system can hold without a second platform stitching them together. Read here as a set of rails, not a promise list.
Service model
Whether a study runs with a named services team behind the software, or a self-serve platform with support tickets. This rarely shows up on a datasheet and almost always shows up at go-live.
Mid-study change handling
What a platform does when an arm is added, a kit schedule shifts, or a country is dropped after the first patient. Change handling is where a comparison earns its keep.
Integration surface
How RTSM talks to the systems around it, including suvoda irt style integrations into EDC, CTMS, and document stores. Published interfaces and open integrations read differently from a handshake described in a deck.
Participant-facing capability
What a participant actually touches: consent flows, diaries, ePRO entry, and the parts of the platform that reach them through a site or a phone.
Where a platform markets something we cannot read as one of these five, we note it as vendor-stated and leave it out of the criterion rows. That keeps the comparison honest about what a reader can prove, and it keeps the visible rows short enough to actually compare against a protocol.
Nothing here is bought
Current policy
Sudova Agent does not sell clinical trial technology and does not accept payment for inclusion in a comparison.
We do not run affiliate placements for RTSM vendors. If that ever changes, the change will be stated on this page before it appears anywhere else on the site. A reader should not have to guess whether a comparison they are reading was paid for, and no footnote buried in a footer would fix that if it were.
We treat a vendor's own claims as claims, not as evidence, and we do not present a platform as the right answer without naming the study type it fits. This is a low bar, and it is surprising how often it is not met. A comparison that presents every platform as suitable for every study has decided nothing, and it is not useful to a sponsor deciding between one and the other.
The same rule applies to how we describe the platforms we write about, including suvoda and sudova irt entries: capability statements are attributed, and where a study type would clearly make a platform a poor fit, we say so plainly rather than dropping the platform into a neutral ranking.
What we accept
Reader corrections, more complete vendor documentation, published reporting on vendor moves.
What we refuse
Payment for placement, affiliate arrangements on RTSM vendors, unpublished roadmaps, and requests to remove a disclosed limitation.
Where our coverage stops
We cover RTSM, IRT, and the adjacent systems that appear in platform bundles: EDC, CTMS, eCOA, ePRO, eConsent, and eTMF. We do not cover pricing, because contracts vary by study size, module mix, and term. We do not rank vendors, because a ranking strips out the study context that makes a comparison useful. We do not cover platforms without a meaningful US trial presence, because a comparison a US sponsor cannot act on wastes time.
That is a deliberate boundary rather than a limitation we hope the reader does not notice. Three boundaries sit around the coverage, and each one exists for a reason that shows up in sponsor work.
Not covered
-
Pricing
Contracts vary by study size, module mix, and term.
-
Rankings
A ranking strips out the study context that makes a comparison useful.
-
Platforms without US trial presence
A comparison a US sponsor cannot act on spends time without returning anything.
How we handle corrections
Platforms change. Modules get added, service models shift, and a detail that was accurate last quarter can go stale. If you find something here that is wrong or out of date, the contact page reaches us directly, and we prefer a specific correction over a general objection.
When we update a claim, we change the claim rather than adding a footnote that contradicts it. That keeps a reader from having to reconcile two versions of the same page, and it means the page you are reading is the page we currently believe.
What readers should do with this
Treat anything here as a starting point for your own evaluation, not as a substitute for it. The platform comparison is designed to narrow a shortlist. The capability guides explain terminology so a feature list can be read critically. Study complexity helps you decide which class of platform your design needs.
Platform comparison
Compare RTSM and adjacent eClinical systems side by side, with the criteria from this page applied row by row.
Read the platform comparison TerminologyCapability guides
Explain what a claim means in practice, so a feature list can be read without guessing which terms matter.
Browse capability guides ScopeStudy complexity
Decide which class of platform your design actually needs, before a shortlist gets locked in.
Check study complexity factorsThe final decision belongs with the team that knows the protocol, the sites, and the supply plan, and no independent resource should pretend otherwise.
Send a specific correction
A clear correction beats a general objection. Name the page, the claim, and what you believe the current position is, and the change lands on the page rather than in a footnote. If the correction comes from a vendor, say so; the note travels with the claim.
Sudova Agent keeps the correspondence short and the response is a page update or a written note back explaining why the current wording stands. Either answer is fine; what is not fine is leaving a reader with a claim nobody has looked at.
Reaching the desk
-
Address
1201 Innovation Drive, Suite 300, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA
-
Phone
+1-617-555-0184
-
Hours
Monday–Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Judge the research before the recommendation
Every section on this page exists so a reader can weigh a comparison rather than trust it. If the sources, the criteria or the correction route described here do not hold up, the comparison itself does not either, and it is a fair question for a sponsor to ask before a shortlist gets made.