Kyros Trials Accessibility Statement

The short version

Our accessibility target is WCAG 2.1 Level AA.

An accessibility evaluation is underway; we are not claiming conformance based on a completed audit.

Report a barrier or request an alternative format at privacy@kyrostrials.com.

1. Our commitment

Bordano Tissue, LLC, doing business as Kyros Trials, aims to make Kyros Trials usable by study staff, participants and visitors with disabilities. Our target is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA, with priority for public study prescreens, the participant portal and electronic informed consent.

2. Evaluation underway

An accessibility evaluation is underway. We will update this statement as we identify barriers and assess improvements. We do not claim that every page or document currently meets the target, or that a third-party accessibility audit has been completed.

3. Assistance and alternative formats

If you encounter a barrier, email privacy@kyrostrials.com. Include the page address, what you were trying to do, and the assistive technology or browser you use, if you wish. Do not include health information in your message. We will work with you to identify an alternative way to obtain the information or complete your request.

Participants can also contact their research site for help with study materials and consent processes. Documents supplied by a research site or sponsor may require an accessible alternative from that organization.

4. Contact

Bordano Tissue, LLC, doing business as Kyros Trials. Accessibility feedback and requests: privacy@kyrostrials.com.

Reader guidance, separate from the document

This section explains how to review accessibility review. It does not amend the policy or supply missing contract terms. Read the published document above and request the current full agreement where the page is a summary. Your organization should confirm that the wording addresses the intended use before relying on it.

Begin with a list of keyboard use, readable information, focus, forms and barrier reporting. Identify who at the site owns each question and what evidence is needed. A general product description cannot answer every contractual or study-specific issue. Keep unanswered questions in the review record rather than treating silence as a favorable term.

Review the workflow and the evidence

The practical responsibility is describing a barrier without disclosing participant information. Ask what record would show that the process was followed and who can review it. A demonstration with sample data can clarify the workflow without disclosing participant information. It does not replace your legal or operational assessment.

For electronic research records, inspect the responsible user, dates, status, record linkage and change history. For public website interactions, review the information requested and the stated purpose. These are different contexts; a business-contact form should not be used to submit source data or confidential study documents.

Keep access and communication specific

Use individual accounts and the access appropriate to the person’s role. A shared login prevents a reliable link between an action and its responsible user. When inviting a reviewer, check the study and access period rather than assuming that a broad organization role is necessary.

For a question about this document, contact legal@kyrostrials.com. For privacy rights or handling concerns, contact privacy@kyrostrials.com. For a technical barrier or service problem, contact support@kyrostrials.com. Include business contact details, the page and the question, but do not paste participant names, health information, credentials or signed study documents into ordinary email.

Plan review before sensitive use

Request the current security summary, provider information and relevant agreement status before transferring sensitive records. Public summaries do not establish BAA execution, a particular vendor arrangement, an uptime guarantee or a certification. If a requirement is unresolved, document it and obtain an answer instead of inferring readiness from a feature being visible.

Your site’s procedures should explain who approves the system’s intended use, how staff are trained and how exceptions are handled. Keep the review proportionate to the study and data involved. A software control supports the procedure; it does not replace investigator responsibility or participant-facing obligations.

Retain context when records move

Before importing or exporting study information, identify the original records, signature evidence and audit histories that must remain available. A spreadsheet can carry values and dates without reproducing the source system’s historical events. Keep source exports and reconcile sample records so a later reviewer can understand the transition.

Review the trust hub for related policies and summaries and the switching guide for a sample migration review plan. Contract-specific archive or exit terms need the full agreement. Customer data is not deleted for non-payment, but your organization still needs to plan record retention and access under the applicable research rules.