Kyros Trials: full facts Last updated 2026-10-27. Canonical site: https://kyrostrials.com What it is ========== Kyros Trials is all-in-one web software for independent clinical research sites and small site networks. It covers site CTMS, eSource and eCRF, an eRegulatory binder, eConsent, recruiting with AI prescreen, visit scheduling, monitoring and SDV, and sponsor financials. Who it is for ============= - Independent clinical research sites running sponsor-funded studies - Small site networks with 2 or more locations - Site directors, research coordinators, investigators and site finance teams Who it is not for ================= - Sponsors or CROs looking for a sponsor-side CTMS or EDC - Private medical practices looking for patient intake or patient billing - Manufacturing or laboratory quality systems Modules ======= - Site CTMS: Studies, participants, visit schedules with windows and a site-wide calendar. - eSource and eCRF: Source captured at the visit, edit checks, monitor queries on the field, SDV status and record locking. - eRegulatory binder: Versioned essential documents, delegation log, training records and expiry alerts. - eConsent: Consent versions, re-consent tracking after amendments and electronic signatures. - Recruiting and AI prescreen: Public prescreen per study, an AI chat that asks eligibility questions, and a candidate pipeline. - Monitoring: Study-scoped outside-monitor access, monitor visits and remote SDV. - Sponsor billing: Per-visit and per-procedure fee schedules, procedures-not-done reasons, earned unbilled items and sponsor invoices with draft, sent, paid and overdue status. - Safety: Adverse events with CTCAE grading, deviations with CAPA, and expedited report drafting. - Exports: Export to CDISC ODM 1.3.2 and SDTM-aligned CSV, plus CSV and PDF, at any time. - Kyros Trials Assistant: An AI assistant that answers questions from the data your role can see and drafts text for your review. Pricing (USD, per location per month) ===================================== - Starter: $299/month or $2990/year. Includes: 1 location; Up to 8 active studies; Core site workflows; Unlimited users. - Site: $599/month or $5990/year. Includes: 1 location; Unlimited studies; Core site workflows, plus AI drafting, prescreen and assistant; Unlimited users. - Network: $499/month or $4990/year. Includes: 2+ locations; Everything in Site; One company across all locations; Per-location billing; Shared fee schedules. - Founding-site offer: Site plan at $399/month locked for 12 months. First 10 sites, in exchange for a case study. 10 of 10 spots available. - Onboarding fee: $0. Migration: free. Contract: month-to-month. Data export any time. - Pricing updated 2026-10-27. Machine-readable: https://kyrostrials.com/pricing.json Compliance posture ================== - Supports 21 CFR Part 11 controls: a time-stamped audit trail of every change, with user, before/after values and reason; e-signatures with password re-authentication; and role-based access. - No software is "Part 11 compliant" on its own. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Validation documentation for the system is in progress and available to customers under NDA. - Data is encrypted in transit and at rest. - AI drafts the routine documents. Your team approves them. AI never decides eligibility, never signs and never sends anything on its own. Every AI request and output is logged with the model version and the approving user. - We never sell your data. Your data is never used to train AI models, ours or anyone else's. - Kyros Trials will sign a BAA once our HIPAA-eligible hosting and AI infrastructure are fully in place. Contact us for the current status. Company ======= Legal entity: Bordano Tissue, LLC, doing business as Kyros Trials. Contact: https://kyrostrials.com/demo Pricing FAQ =========== Q: What's included? A: Every plan includes the core site workflows: studies and visits, eSource and eCRF, eRegulatory binder, eConsent, recruiting, monitoring and sponsor billing, with unlimited users. Site and Network add AI drafting, prescreen chat and Kyros Trials Assistant. Q: How long does it take to go live? A: Most sites are running within days. We set up your studies and sites with you on a call, then your team starts scheduling visits. Q: Do you migrate my data? A: Yes, free. Send us an export from your current system, or your spreadsheets and paper logs, and we move studies, participants, visits and documents. Q: Does Kyros Trials meet 21 CFR Part 11? A: Kyros Trials supports 21 CFR Part 11 controls: a time-stamped audit trail of every change, with user, before/after values and reason; e-signatures with re-authentication; and role-based access. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: How is our data protected? A: Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, access is role-based, and every change is in a time-stamped audit trail with user, before/after values and reason. Q: Can sponsors pay for it? A: Often, yes. Many sponsors reimburse site technology as a budget line item. We give you the line-item language to add during budget negotiation. Q: Who owns the data? A: You do. Export everything any time as CSV or PDF, or export to CDISC ODM 1.3.2 and SDTM-aligned CSV. No fee, no ticket. Q: How do I cancel? A: Plans are month-to-month. Cancel any time and take a full export of your data with you. Clinical trial management software for independent research sites. (https://kyrostrials.com/ctms-for-research-sites) ==================================================================================================================== Keep the protocol schedule, participant visits and outstanding site work connected from Day 1. A coordinator needs more than a calendar appointment. The visit has an anchor date, a protocol window, required procedures and work that remains after the participant leaves. A site CTMS should keep those details together without mixing the sponsor’s oversight work with the site’s operational record. Kyros Trials brings studies, participants, Schedule and Today into one site workflow. Start with a single protocol and inspect how a date change affects the participant’s next visit before committing your team to a new system. Core capabilities (Advanced off; roles and configuration apply): - Study records: Keep the study identifier, sponsor and operating context together. - Schedule of assessments: Define visits and procedures against the study’s protocol schedule. - Day 1 anchors: Record the participant’s anchor date for scheduled visit targets. - Early and late windows: Show target dates with the permitted opening and closing dates. - Participant schedules: Inspect planned visits within one participant’s study record. - Site-wide Schedule: See appointments across the site without a separate calendar ledger. - Today worklist: Review due visits, outstanding review and unbilled work together. - Out-of-window flags: Preserve the actual visit and follow up on the window issue. - Study progress: Separate randomized progress from screen-fail reporting. - Tasks and access: Assign follow-up work while keeping study access role-scoped. - 21 CFR 312.60 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-D/section-312.60): Connects study work and participant visits to the protocol context. Site responsibility: Conduct the investigation according to the signed agreement and protocol; protect participants. - Protocol visit windows (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-D/section-312.60): Shows targets and early/late dates anchored to Day 1. Site responsibility: Set the correct schedule, interpret exceptions and document protocol deviations. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: What is a site CTMS? A: A site clinical trial management system organizes the day-to-day work of a research site: studies, participants, schedules, documents and sponsor billing. It is different from a sponsor CTMS that oversees multiple investigator sites. Kyros Trials is built for independent sites and small site networks. Q: How are visit windows calculated? A: Staff record Day 1 using the anchor defined by the protocol. The schedule then uses visit offsets and early/late allowances to show target and permitted dates. Your team remains responsible for configuring those offsets correctly and reviewing schedule changes after amendments. Q: Can we save an out-of-window visit? A: The actual visit needs to remain in the record. Kyros Trials flags window issues and connects the work to deviation follow-up rather than treating an unexpected date as a reason to discard the visit. Staff decide the appropriate explanation and subsequent action. Q: Does Today replace the protocol? A: No. Today is an operational view of work due and outstanding. The approved protocol, site procedures and investigator oversight remain authoritative. Use the worklist to reach the relevant record, not as a substitute for reading procedure requirements or evaluating participant safety. Q: Can different staff see different studies? A: Access is role-based and study-scoped where the workflow calls for it. Ask to inspect a coordinator and outside-monitor view during a demo. A shared schedule does not mean every user should see every study, participant or protected record. Q: How do we evaluate a migration? A: Bring a small de-identified study export and one schedule of assessments. Review participant identifiers, Day 1 dates, visit offsets and status mapping before importing. Reconcile the results with the original export and retain the source system’s historical records under your retention policy. eSource and eCRF for independent research sites. (https://kyrostrials.com/esource) ================================================================================== Capture visit data, answer field queries and retain investigator sign-off alongside the source record. A value needs context: which participant, which visit, which procedure and who recorded it. Electronic source is not just a paper worksheet displayed on a tablet. It must support a reviewable record when a coordinator corrects a value, a monitor asks a question or an investigator signs. Kyros Trials connects visit forms, field queries, verification and signatures. Bring one real procedure specification to a demo and inspect the sample record from initial entry through a reasoned correction, rather than evaluating only an empty form. Core capabilities (Advanced off; roles and configuration apply): - Visit-linked forms: Open electronic forms in the study and visit context. - Procedure fields: Capture the values required for the configured procedure. - Required-field checks: Prompt staff for required information before submission. - Edit checks: Review configured range and format issues during capture. - Field-level queries: Keep a reviewer’s question tied to the source field. - Query responses: Retain staff answers within the review workflow. - Verification status: Distinguish entered source from completed review. - Investigator signatures: Require the authorized signer to re-authenticate. - Reasoned corrections: Retain before/after values and the stated change reason. - Data exports: Review CDISC ODM 1.3.2 and SDTM-aligned CSV exports. - 21 CFR 11.10(e) (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-11): Retains time-stamped change history with user, values and reason. Site responsibility: Review audit trails and establish retention and review procedures. - 21 CFR 11.50 and 11.70 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-11): Links signature identity, time and meaning to the record. Site responsibility: Define signing responsibilities and verify signature manifestations in use. - 21 CFR 11.200 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-11): Uses signer re-authentication and controlled account access. Site responsibility: Establish identity, credential management and electronic-signature procedures. - FDA eSource guidance, 2013 (https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/electronic-source-data-clinical-investigations): Connects electronic visit capture and field review to records. Site responsibility: Identify authorized source originators and reconcile sponsor data requirements. - ICH E6(R3) data integrity (https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_E6%28R3%29_Step4_FinalGuideline_2025_0106.pdf): Preserves traceable changes and review context. Site responsibility: Assess data criticality, system suitability and documented site procedures. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: What is eSource in clinical trials? A: eSource is original source data captured electronically, rather than first recorded on paper and later transcribed. Its value depends on attribution, traceability and an appropriate source-data process. FDA’s 2013 guidance explains considerations for electronic source data in clinical investigations. Q: Is eSource the same as an eCRF? A: No. Source is the original record supporting the observation; an eCRF is a structured case report form used to report trial data. A site must establish the source designation and reporting arrangement with the sponsor. A shared form does not remove those responsibilities. Q: How does a field query work? A: A reviewer raises a question against the relevant field. The coordinator responds with the necessary clarification, and the query retains its relationship to the source record. Your monitor and site procedures determine whether the answer resolves the issue and whether a correction is needed. Q: What happens after the investigator signs? A: The signature is linked to the record and the signer re-authenticates. Subsequent regulated changes require the controlled change or unlock workflow with a reason. Ask to inspect the signature meaning, record history and permissions instead of relying on a signature-shaped mark alone. Q: Does using eSource establish Part 11 compliance? A: No software establishes that outcome by itself. Kyros Trials supports audit trails, electronic signatures with re-authentication and access controls. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Your site must assess its intended use, procedures, training and retention obligations. Q: Can we use the exports in the sponsor’s system? A: Kyros Trials provides export to CDISC ODM 1.3.2 and SDTM-aligned CSV. The sponsor’s required structure, terminology and transfer specification still need review. An available export format is not a promise that a particular sponsor will accept it without mapping or reconciliation. eRegulatory binder for independent research sites. (https://kyrostrials.com/eregulatory-binder) =============================================================================================== Keep essential documents, staff delegation and expiry information within the study record. The question on monitoring day is rarely whether a file exists somewhere. It is whether the site can identify the right version, explain its status and show the supporting staff records. A digital investigator site file should preserve that context without turning every review into another binder assembly exercise. Kyros Trials brings study documents, version history, expiry information, delegation and training into connected site workflows. Your team still defines its essential-record checklist and reviews the content of each document before treating it as ready for use. Core capabilities (Advanced off; roles and configuration apply): - Study binders: Organize essential documents against the study they support. - Document classification: Classify document types in the study’s essential-record register. - Version metadata: Record revision identifiers and document version information. - IRB records: File approvals and amendments in study context. - Validity dates: Record effective and expiry information for review. - Expiry worklist: Bring upcoming regulatory expirations into the site’s work. - Delegation log: Record staff responsibilities within the study. - Training records: Keep staff training information available for review. - Electronic signatures: Use the shared authorized signing workflow. - Scoped monitor access: Define the study and period an outside reviewer can access. - ICH E6(R3) essential records (https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/ICH_E6%28R3%29_Step4_FinalGuideline_2025_0106.pdf): Organizes study documents, versions, delegation and training records. Site responsibility: Determine essential records, check their content and maintain the investigator site file. - 21 CFR 312.62 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-D/section-312.62): Keeps relevant study records and their history available for review. Site responsibility: Meet applicable investigator recordkeeping and retention duties; drug accountability is not this binder demonstration. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: What is an eRegulatory binder? A: An eRegulatory binder is the electronic investigator site file, sometimes called an eISF or eBinder. It organizes the essential records a site retains for a study, such as approvals, protocol versions, delegation and training evidence. It is more than an unstructured shared folder. Q: Which documents should our site include? A: Use the protocol, sponsor requirements, your site procedures and ICH E6(R3) to define the checklist. Common categories include IRB approvals, consent documents, investigator qualifications, delegation, training and correspondence. The software organizes records; it does not decide that your file contains every required document. Q: Does a new upload replace the old version? A: Version history is important because reviewers may need to understand what was in force at an earlier date. Inspect how your document revisions and metadata are retained during the demo. Staff should review whether a revision changes the document’s approval or use status. Q: How are expiring documents handled? A: Document validity information supports review of upcoming expirations. A reminder is not a renewal or a finding that the document is acceptable. Assign responsibility for checking the replacement, updating the record and confirming its effect on staff activities or study conduct. Q: Can an outside monitor review the binder? A: Authorized staff can provide named, study-scoped monitor access for a defined period. Review the exact records available to that account before inviting a reviewer. Access should fit the monitoring purpose and the site’s confidentiality procedures, rather than expose the entire organization. Q: Does the binder determine retention periods? A: No. The site must establish retention under applicable regulations, the protocol, sponsor agreements and its procedures. Preserving electronic history is part of the record workflow, but staff still own retention decisions, review arrangements and the handling of original records during a switch. eConsent for clinical trials at independent research sites. (https://kyrostrials.com/econsent) ============================================================================================== Connect consent versions, participant assignments and re-consent follow-up without replacing the staff-led conversation. Informed consent is a process, not a signature button. The participant must receive understandable information, have the opportunity to ask questions and make a voluntary decision. Electronic records can help the site show which document version was used and which participants need follow-up after an amendment. Kyros Trials connects versions, assignments and signed records so staff can review consent status in the participant context. The IRB-approved approach, protocol and applicable consent requirements determine whether a particular electronic or remote process is appropriate for your study. Core capabilities (Advanced off; roles and configuration apply): - Study consent documents: Associate informed-consent documents with the study. - Version identifiers: Keep the specific consent version identifiable. - Approval information: Retain the approval context for staff to review. - Participant assignments: Connect required consent work to participant records. - Signed-version status: See the version recorded for a participant. - Re-consent visibility: Review pending assignments after a version change. - Completion records: Record re-consent completion through the staff workflow. - Consent history: Review participant assignments and recorded completion history. - Staff follow-up: Use participant consent status to plan the next conversation. - Re-consent gate: Study-linked source inserts check pending required re-consent assignments. - 21 CFR 50.27 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-50/subpart-B/section-50.27): Retains version assignments and staff-recorded consent completion. Site responsibility: Use the required documentation approach and provide a signed copy where required. - FDA/OHRP eIC Q&A, 2016 (https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/use-electronic-informed-consent-clinical-investigations-questions-and-answers): Supports electronic version, assignment and consent-tracking workflows. Site responsibility: Assess identity, comprehension, access, copies and the suitability of the consent process. - IRB approval of the version (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-50/subpart-B/section-50.27): Keeps document version and approval information available to staff. Site responsibility: Confirm approval, effective use dates and any required re-consent before use. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: What is eConsent in clinical trials? A: eConsent uses electronic systems to support presentation of study information and documentation of informed consent. It may include electronic signatures and version tracking, but the staff-led discussion and participant’s voluntary decision remain central. The IRB-approved process determines how it may be used. Q: How does re-consent tracking work? A: Staff associate the new consent version with the study and review participants who have older versions or pending assignments. The worklist supports follow-up and recording the new signed version. Your site determines the affected participants and timing under the IRB’s directions and protocol. Q: Does a signature mean consent is adequate? A: No. The site must assess the whole process, including understandable information, opportunity for questions and the participant’s decision. A signed electronic record documents part of that process. It does not replace staff judgment about comprehension, voluntariness or applicable requirements. Q: Can we use electronic consent remotely? A: Only where the IRB, protocol and applicable rules permit the proposed method. Review identity confirmation, participant access, signed copies and the opportunity to speak with staff. Ask to review the actual workflow for your study rather than assuming any electronic signature permits remote use. Q: When does study data entry unlock? A: The sample illustrates completing consent work before study source entry. The re-consent guard checks pending required assignments on covered study-linked inserts, not every form, update or procedure. It does not establish initial informed consent by itself. Staff still confirm initial consent, signed evidence and current-version requirements. Q: What should we bring to the demo? A: Bring a de-identified consent-version history and the IRB’s electronic consent requirements, not an actual signed participant document. Walk through an amendment, a pending assignment and a recorded signature. Check how your site would provide copies and preserve records under its procedures. Clinical trial recruiting with staff-led screening. (https://kyrostrials.com/recruiting) ======================================================================================== Bring prescreen responses into a staff review queue while keeping eligibility decisions with your study team. A candidate’s interest, a prescreen response and a screening outcome are different records. The recruiting workflow should make those stages understandable without presenting a preliminary response as medical advice or a final determination. Kyros Trials organizes candidates and screening outcomes, with an optional disclosed automated prescreen when the AI service and plan are configured. The core recruiting record does not depend on an automated judgment. Staff review the responses, decide the next contact and document the study screening result using approved criteria and site procedures. Core capabilities (Advanced off; roles and configuration apply): - Candidate records: Keep interested participants in the recruiting workflow. - Study context: Associate recruiting activity with the relevant study. - Screening criteria: Maintain study criteria for staff-led review. - Shareable prescreen: Provide a study prescreen entry point for candidates. - Consent before health questions: Request permission before the automated health-question flow. - Automated-assistant disclosure: Identify automated interaction when that option is configured. - Human contact option: Keep a route to the study team available. - Staff review queue: Review responses before deciding the next screening step. - Screen-fail reasons: Record why screening did not lead to enrollment. - Separate progress reporting: Distinguish candidate activity from randomized progress. - IRB review of recruiting material (https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/recruiting-study-subjects): Provides study-specific criteria and a prescreen entry point. Site responsibility: Submit scripts and recruitment materials for required review; control approved versions. - FTC truthful AI claims (https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/02/keep-your-ai-claims-check): Discloses automated interaction and retains staff decision responsibility. Site responsibility: Review advertising and disclosures; do not imply an automated eligibility determination. - Applicable state AI notices (https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title13/Chapter77/C13-77-S103_2025050720250507.html): Supports automated-assistant disclosure and human contact. Site responsibility: Determine which state laws apply and obtain appropriate legal review; no blanket legal sufficiency is asserted. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: What is clinical trial recruiting? A: Clinical trial recruiting is the site’s process of reaching potential participants, reviewing initial interest and arranging study screening. Prescreening may help organize that process, but it does not establish eligibility. Study staff apply the protocol and approved criteria through the required screening process. Q: Is the automated prescreen included in every plan? A: Core recruiting is included in every plan. AI drafting and prescreen chat are Site and Network features and require configured AI services. If AI is not configured, the interface states that it is unavailable. Do not plan an automated campaign until your team has reviewed that setup. Q: Who determines eligibility? A: Only study staff make eligibility decisions. The automated assistant may collect answers or prepare a draft summary for review, but it does not enroll a candidate, decide eligibility, sign records or send messages on its own. A possible match still requires staff-led screening. Q: What must the IRB review? A: Recruitment materials and prescreen scripts may require IRB review under the study’s arrangements. Confirm the appropriate submission and approved wording before sharing a public link. Software availability does not mean your site can use an unreviewed script or recruitment claim. Q: How are candidates told about automation? A: The optional automated flow identifies the assistant and requests consent before health questions. It also keeps human contact available. Your team must assess applicable privacy and AI-notice requirements and review the actual participant-facing language, rather than assume one disclosure satisfies every jurisdiction. Q: Can we see why someone screen-failed? A: Staff can record screen-fail reasons in the recruiting workflow and keep them separate from study enrollment progress. Use the screening log template to plan the fields and review categories with your team. A prescreen answer alone should not be substituted for a documented study screening outcome. Sponsor invoicing for clinical research sites. (https://kyrostrials.com/sponsor-invoicing) ========================================================================================== Connect the negotiated fee schedule, completed study work and sponsor invoice without losing the item trail. The finance question starts before an invoice is drafted: what did the site earn under the clinical trial agreement, and what evidence releases that fee? Kyros Trials keeps a study/site fee schedule, entered or verified triggers, unbilled items and sponsor invoices connected. Staff review the items before invoicing and retain their relationship to the underlying work. This is sponsor billing, not participant billing. The contract defines entitlement, payment conditions and disputes; the software provides a record workflow for applying the fee schedule your team has agreed. Core capabilities (Advanced off; roles and configuration apply): - Study/site fee schedule: Maintain negotiated per-visit and per-procedure amounts in the study context. Procedure fees apply at every scheduled visit or one selected visit. - Procedure completion checklist: Review scheduled procedures at visit entry. Mark procedures not done with a short reason; those procedure fees do not accrue. - Entered triggers: Accrue a configured item when source entry meets its trigger. - Verified triggers: Use review completion where the negotiated trigger requires it. - Unbilled review: Inspect pending earned work before invoicing. - Study grouping: Group unbilled items by study for reconciliation. - Participant-code context: Follow an item to the participant’s completed work. - Linked invoice items: Create an invoice from selected eligible unbilled items. - Printable invoice detail: Review sponsor, site, study and item totals before sending, with visit and procedure lines grouped under each visit. - Status and reasoned void: Track invoice status and preserve corrections through voiding. - Clinical trial agreement fee schedule (/tools/site-budget-calculator): Keeps negotiated per-visit and per-procedure fees and triggers linked to study/site work. Site responsibility: Interpret the signed agreement, reconcile payments and approve the invoice. - Invoice data minimization (/privacy): Uses study and participant-code context rather than participant billing. Site responsibility: Review every invoice and description for identifiers or health details; a study code can still be sensitive. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Q: What is sponsor invoicing for a research site? A: Sponsor invoicing is the site’s process of requesting payment for work earned under a clinical trial agreement. The fee schedule and agreement define which visits and individual procedures are payable and what evidence is required. Configure a procedure at every visit where it is scheduled, or limit it to one visit. It is distinct from participant payments or patient billing. Q: What makes an item unbilled? A: An item becomes available when it meets its configured entered or verified trigger and is eligible for billing but not linked to an invoice. Staff review that state against the agreement. Unbilled is not a guarantee of immediate sponsor acceptance or payment. Q: Can a fee wait for investigator verification? A: The fee schedule supports entered or verified billing triggers. Select the one that reflects the negotiated milestone conditions and inspect a sample source record as it crosses that trigger. Staff should review configuration with finance rather than infer payment terms from a procedure name. Q: How is invoice KT-2026-0002 created in the sample? A: The illustration starts with completed work, then shows eligible unbilled lines selected into a sponsor invoice. The number and amounts are sample records, not an existing customer’s invoice or revenue result. In the app, authorized staff review eligible items and create the linked invoice. Q: What happens when an invoice is voided? A: Authorized staff use the shared reason-required signature workflow. The original invoice remains in the record, and its linked billable items return to Unbilled so staff can prepare a corrected invoice. Your finance procedures determine approval, sponsor communication and reconciliation. Q: Can we promise invoices contain no PHI? A: No automatic guarantee should replace review. Use study and participant codes, avoid names and clinical details in descriptions, and inspect the printable invoice before sharing. A coded identifier can still be sensitive in context. Your site owns the minimum necessary disclosure and sponsor-facing review. Vendor comparison (last verified October 2026) ============================================== - Kyros Trials: ctms Included, esource Included, ereg Included, econsent Included, monitor Included, invoicing Included. Price: Published: $299 to $599/mo per location. Sources: https://kyrostrials.com/pricing - CRIO: ctms Listed, esource Listed, ereg Listed, econsent Listed, monitor Listed, invoicing Listed. Price: Numerical price not published on reviewed vendor pages. Sources: https://clinicalresearch.io/products/site-ctms/ https://www.g2.com/products/crio/pricing - RealTime-CTMS: ctms Listed, esource Listed, ereg Listed, econsent Listed, monitor Listed, invoicing Listed. Price: Numerical price not published on reviewed pricing page; request quote. Sources: https://realtime-eclinical.com/pricing/ https://realtime-eclinical.com/solutions/econsent/ - Advarra Clinical Conductor: ctms Listed, esource Not published, ereg Not published, econsent Not published, monitor Not published, invoicing Not published. Price: Pricing not published. Sources: https://www.advarra.com/solutions/sites/ctms/clinical-conductor/ - Florence: ctms Not published, esource Not published, ereg Listed, econsent Listed, monitor Listed, invoicing Not published. Price: Pricing not published. Sources: https://www.florencehc.com/products/ebinders/ - SimpleTrials: ctms Not published, esource Not published, ereg Not published, econsent Not published, monitor Not published, invoicing Not published. Price: Not published. Sources: https://www.simpletrials.com/ Q: What is a good alternative to CRIO for a research site? A: Kyros Trials covers the same core areas CRIO lists (eSource, site CTMS, eRegulatory and eConsent) and includes recruiting and sponsor invoicing; optional AI depends on plan and configuration, with published prices from $299 per month. Q: How much does CRIO cost? A: CRIO does not publish pricing on its website, and its G2 pricing page does not list a price. Ask CRIO for a quote. Q: Can I migrate from CRIO to Kyros Trials? A: Yes. Send us an export and we migrate studies, participants, visits and documents for free. Q: How much does RealTime-CTMS cost? A: The reviewed RealTime vendor pricing page describes customized solutions without a numerical price. Request a current quote specifying modules, users, studies and terms. Q: What is an alternative to RealTime-CTMS? A: Kyros Trials is a site CTMS with eSource, eRegulatory, eConsent, recruiting and sponsor invoicing included, from $299 per month with $0 onboarding. Q: Can I move my RealTime data to Kyros Trials? A: Yes. Migration is free. We import studies, participants, visits and documents from an export. Q: How much does Advarra Clinical Conductor cost? A: Advarra does not publish Clinical Conductor pricing. Ask Advarra for a quote. Q: What is an alternative to Clinical Conductor for independent sites? A: Kyros Trials is built for independent sites and small networks, with CTMS, eSource, eRegulatory, eConsent, recruiting and sponsor invoicing from $299 per month. Q: Do you migrate from Clinical Conductor? A: Yes, free. We import studies, participants, visits and documents from an export. Q: What is an alternative to Florence eBinders? A: Kyros Trials includes an eRegulatory binder with versioning, delegation log, training records and expiry alerts, plus CTMS, eSource, eConsent and sponsor invoicing, from $299 per month. Q: How much does Florence eBinders cost? A: Numerical pricing was not identified on the reviewed eBinders product pages. Other sales channels may list specific packages; ask Florence for a quote matched to your site and modules. Q: Can monitors access the Kyros Trials binder remotely? A: Yes. Sponsor monitors can be given study-scoped access to review documents. Free templates ============== - Delegation of authority log template (https://kyrostrials.com/templates/delegation-log): columns Staff name, Role, Delegated tasks, Start date, End date, Staff signature, Staff initials, PI initials, PI date - Screening and enrollment log template (https://kyrostrials.com/templates/screening-log): columns Screening number, Date screened, Initials, Age, Consent date, Consent version, Eligible (Y/N), Screen-fail reason, Enrolled (Y/N), Participant ID, Staff initials - Note to file template (https://kyrostrials.com/templates/note-to-file): columns Study / protocol number, Site, Participant ID, Subject of note, Description, Root cause, Corrective and preventive action, Author name and role, Author signature and date, Investigator signature and date Guides ====== - 21 CFR Part 11 for research sites: what the software does and what you own: https://kyrostrials.com/resources/21-cfr-part-11-for-research-sites - Out-of-window visits: how to document deviations: https://kyrostrials.com/resources/out-of-window-visits - Getting paid for every procedure: reconciling a clinical trial agreement fee schedule: https://kyrostrials.com/resources/clinical-trial-fee-schedule-reconciliation - How to calculate visit windows (with examples): https://kyrostrials.com/resources/how-to-calculate-visit-windows - ICH E6(R3): what changes for research sites: https://kyrostrials.com/resources/ich-e6-r3-changes-for-sites - How much does CTMS software cost in 2026?: https://kyrostrials.com/resources/ctms-software-cost Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/pricing) ======================================================== Compare the plan against your site Choose the subscription around active studies and locations, not around a staff headcount. Starter supports one location and up to eight active studies. Site supports one location with unlimited studies and adds the optional AI workflows. Network is for two or more locations. Every plan includes unlimited users and the default core modules; access still follows staff roles and study permissions. Support is arranged through the Kyros Trials team. We do not publish a guaranteed response time or a dedicated account manager entitlement for individual plans. Ask for the support and service terms during procurement instead of treating a pricing label as an availability commitment. What every plan includes The core subscription connects studies and participants, visit scheduling, eSource and eCRF, essential-record tracking, consent-version tracking, recruiting, outside-monitor workflows and sponsor billing. These are default workflows, not optional Advanced modules. Review one protocol’s path through the system before deciding which plan fits your site. The plan price does not replace your site’s configuration, training or regulatory responsibilities. Optional AI drafting requires the Site or Network plan and configured services. Staff review and approve drafts before use; automated prescreening does not determine eligibility. Unlimited users does not mean unrestricted record access: study and company permissions remain in force. For procurement Request a W-9 at legal@kyrostrials.com and ask for our security summary (https://kyrostrials.com/security). Your review should cover data rights, access, support, signature procedures and exit arrangements alongside the subscription price. Public trust pages summarize the documents; request the full agreements before relying on them as contract terms. BAA readiness and execution status are available on request. Do not assume an agreement is executed or that any particular hosting arrangement is suitable for your intended health-information use. Review the BAA summary (https://kyrostrials.com/baa) with your privacy team before submitting sensitive records. Subscriptions have published monthly and annual options. Monthly plans are month-to-month; annual pricing is an upfront yearly choice, not monthly billing at a discounted figure. You can export your data on exit. Discuss retention, archive access and transfer arrangements before ending service so that cancellation does not interrupt your investigator record obligations. There is no proprietary-format lock-in claim intended to replace an export review. A planning example, not a return guarantee Illustrative example: assume a negotiated procedure fee of $150 and five eligible procedures that finance has not yet invoiced. That is $750 of work to reconcile, not new revenue created by software. Compare that amount with the Site plan’s $599 monthly subscription and then review the actual contract conditions, staff cost and payment status. A difference of $151 is arithmetic, not a measured Kyros Trials customer result. Use the site budget calculator (https://kyrostrials.com/tools/site-budget-calculator) to model procedure costs, expected visits and fixed fees. Do not substitute a budget estimate for an earned-item ledger or assume that the sponsor will reimburse your technology cost. Each clinical trial agreement determines what is payable, what evidence is needed and whether a fee is paid automatically or by invoice. Q: Which plan fits a single independent site? A: Starter fits one location with up to eight active studies. Site removes that study limit and adds optional AI workflows when configured. Review the study count, required workflow and intended use with your team; the lower price is not a reason to overlook a plan limit. Q: What is included in every plan? A: Core studies, participants, scheduling, eSource, regulatory records, consent tracking, recruiting, monitoring and sponsor billing are included. Users are unlimited. AI drafting and prescreen chat require Site or Network and configuration. Staff permissions and study access still apply. Q: How does annual pricing compare with monthly? A: Annual pricing equals ten monthly payments paid for a year: Starter $2,990, Site $5,990 and Network $4,990 per location. The savings compared with twelve monthly payments are $598, $1,198 and $998 respectively. Review renewal and cancellation terms before choosing upfront billing. Q: What does the founding offer require? A: The Site plan is $399 per month locked for twelve months for the first ten founding sites, in exchange for a case study. Availability is read from the offer record. A demo request does not reserve or purchase a spot; confirm acceptance and payment arrangements with the team. Q: Are there onboarding or migration fees? A: Published onboarding and migration fees are zero. Agree on the scope, available exports, document handling and staff review steps before transferring records. Free migration is not a promise that another vendor’s signatures or audit history can be reconstructed from a spreadsheet. Q: Can procurement request a W-9 and security information? A: Yes. Contact legal@kyrostrials.com for a W-9 and the current agreement set. Use the security and trust pages as starting points, then review the full documents with your organization’s privacy, IT and legal staff before adopting the service. Q: Is a BAA already in place for our site? A: Do not assume so. Request the current infrastructure and agreement status before using the service for protected health information. The public BAA page is a summary, not an executed agreement and not a statement that every intended use is covered. Q: What happens if we leave? A: Customers can export data, including audit trails and signatures. Review the formats and archive arrangements in advance and preserve required study records. We do not delete customer data for non-payment. The full agreement governs exit details; monthly and annual billing have different payment commitments. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/demo) ===================================================== What happens in twenty minutes The call follows one operational record instead of a tour of unrelated screens. We use sample data and your questions to identify what the team needs to inspect. The agenda below is a proposed structure, not a promise that every complex protocol can be configured during one call. Who should attend Bring the coordinator who can explain a visit from scheduling to source completion and the site owner or director who knows the adoption constraints. If sponsor invoicing is the priority, invite finance. An investigator is useful when the main questions concern review, delegation or signatures. You do not need every role on the first call. Ask each person to identify one record they would want to inspect. A coordinator may choose an out-of-window visit; finance may choose a verified procedure awaiting an invoice; the investigator may choose a correction after signing. This makes the call more specific than comparing a list of module names. We can arrange a follow-up review for matters that need a separate security or legal discussion. What to send before the call One protocol schedule of assessments can help us understand visit offsets and procedure requirements, but do not attach confidential protocol material or participant records to this public form. Describe the study pattern in general terms first. Agree on an appropriate transfer method and permission to share the document with our team separately. An optional de-identified export header can show the field names your current system uses. Remove participant names, dates of birth, contact details, health answers and free-text source notes. We can discuss column mapping without seeing live clinical data. Keep a copy of your current system’s export specification so the review does not rely on assumptions about a vendor’s standard CSV. What happens after the demo If the fit looks appropriate, we agree on a sample-study setup and review plan. A suggested sequence is scope and procurement review first, then configuration of a test study, then a staff walkthrough and sample migration checks. Timing depends on protocol complexity, available exports, staff availability and your organization’s approvals. This is not a guaranteed trial activation date. Before staff use the system for study work, confirm access, required procedures, consent handling, signature controls and sponsor billing triggers. Your team approves the transition after reviewing sample records. A demo request is not a purchase, an account reservation or authorization to move clinical records. We reply within one business day to arrange the next conversation. Privacy for this request The form asks for business contact information and a description of your site. Do not enter PHI, participant identifiers, confidential source data or passwords. If a sensitive record is relevant to your question, say that you would like a secure transfer discussion rather than pasting it into the message. We use the request to contact you about the demonstration and related next steps. Review the privacy policy (https://kyrostrials.com/privacy) for handling of website and business-contact information. You can ask a privacy question without submitting a study document. The public form is intentionally not a clinical intake or participant-support channel. Q: Do I need to prepare a study export? A: No. A description of your current process is enough for the first call. A de-identified header list may help with migration questions; sharing records requires a separate transfer arrangement. Q: Will the demo use our participant data? A: No. We demonstrate with sample records. Keep names, health answers and signed documents out of the form. We can discuss your workflow without collecting clinical records. Q: Can finance and our PI attend? A: Yes. The call can focus on the record each person needs to review. Let us know the priorities so the twenty-minute agenda stays useful rather than becoming a broad feature tour. Q: Does booking start a paid subscription? A: No. This form requests a conversation. Plan selection, agreement review, payment arrangements and any test-study setup are separate steps that you approve. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) ======================================================= A day 0–14 migration review plan This drawn sequence is an illustrative planning timeline. It is not a promised go-live date. Export availability, document volume, staff review and procurement can change the schedule. Agree on the scope and responsible people before any transfer. What can be moved, and what needs separate review The current CSV importer handles participant and completed-visit rows after checking required identifiers, study references and dates. Documents and fee schedules are part of the assisted migration scope, not a claim that the participant CSV automatically uploads regulatory files or activates a negotiated budget. Review file structure and schedule mapping separately. Consent evidence, original signatures and historical audit trails need their own retention plan. A consent-date cell is not a signed document. A visit-status label is not proof of source verification. Keep the source export and supporting records available so your staff can reconcile the destination record against the original. Column mapping without assuming a standard export These are example headers recognized by the mapping presets, not certifications of the vendors’ export formats. CRIO and RealTime configurations can vary. Excel has no fixed schema. Inspect the actual header row and select the correct destination field; never silently treat enrollment date as first dose or Day 1. Checks before the import becomes site work The preview flags missing required values, duplicates, invalid dates and unknown study or visit references by row. Correct the export or mapping and review again before saving. The import uses one transaction, so a rejected batch is not a partly accepted set of participants and visits. After import, compare record counts and inspect a sample from each important category. Check one participant’s study, one completed visit’s date and one Day 1 anchor against the original. Retain an import review record and the source export. New audit entries describe the import into Kyros Trials; they do not recreate actions that occurred in the previous system. Keep the old record available Plan read-only retention with the previous vendor before ending access. Kyros Trials cannot change another vendor’s account permissions or guarantee their archive pricing. Your site remains responsible for retaining investigator records, obtaining exports and meeting the applicable contract and regulatory periods. Migration and onboarding have no published fee. Free assistance does not remove the need for staff verification, legal review or a safe transfer method. Agree on exceptions, unresolved rows and the date staff will stop entering new work in the old system. Keep an escalation contact available during the transition rather than treating a successful upload as the whole migration. Q: Is the fourteen-day timeline guaranteed? A: No. It is a planning example. Timing depends on exports, record volume, protocol complexity and your staff’s review and approvals. Do not close the old system on the basis of this example. Q: Do CRIO and RealTime presets import everything? A: No. Presets help match participant and visit headers. Documents, fee schedules, signatures and audit histories require separate scope and review. Confirm the actual export fields before importing. Q: Will historical audit trails be recreated? A: No. An import creates new records and audit context in Kyros Trials. Preserve original audit and signature records from the source system under your retention plan; do not describe a CSV as reproducing those histories. Q: Is migration free? A: There is no published migration or onboarding fee. Agree on the scope, file handling, staff checks and transfer method with our team before sending records. Your current vendor may have its own export or archive terms. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/compare) ======================================================== Choose a workflow, not a checklist A product can list a module without showing how the site uses it. Compare the same sample protocol across vendors: anchor Day 1, inspect a visit window, enter source, answer a query and follow an earned procedure into billing. Ask who can see each record and what evidence stays attached after a correction. Choose an established specialist when its particular workflow, implementation resources and existing integrations fit your site. A focused binder platform can be appropriate when your CTMS already works well. A broader institutional CTMS may fit research operations that require more than a small independent-site workflow. There is no single best platform for every site. Published pricing versus a scoped quote Kyros Trials publishes Starter at $299 per month, Site at $599 per month and Network at $499 per location per month. Core workflows and unlimited users are included; AI requires the appropriate plan and configuration. For other vendors, request a written quote matching your studies, users, locations and required products. Not published means the reviewed public material did not establish the fact. It does not mean a feature is absent, a vendor is hiding a charge or a quoted price would be higher. Ask about onboarding, migration, support, monitor accounts, renewal, export and archive arrangements. Compare annual and monthly commitments separately. What a fair evaluation records Record the source, review date and any assumptions next to each fact. A vendor page is evidence that the vendor lists a product; it is not an independent verification of deployment, performance or regulatory suitability. Avoid treating a third-party starting price as a current all-module quote. Choose Kyros Trials if your team wants connected core site workflows and published subscription terms, and the sample records and procurement review support your intended use. Choose another vendor if its demonstrated workflow, contract, support or specialized requirements fit better. Inspect the same tasks with the people who will actually perform them. Migration belongs in the comparison Ask each vendor how you obtain participants, visits, documents, negotiated fees, signatures and historical audit records. Check the destination field mapping before agreeing that an export is sufficient. Your current system should remain available for retention and reconciliation; confirm read-only access terms with its provider. The switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) describes a sample review timeline and the current participant/visit CSV mapping. Assisted document and fee-schedule review is a separate scope. Free migration does not guarantee that another system’s historical signing events can be reconstructed. Keep sample verification and unresolved exceptions in the adoption decision. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/tools/visit-window-calculator) ============================================================================== Worked example: Day 15 with a three-day window Illustrative schedule: the anchor is 1 January 2026 and the protocol calls it Day 1. The target visit is Day 15, with three days allowed early and three late. Day 15 is fourteen days after the anchor, so the target is 15 January. The allowed dates run from 12 January through 18 January, inclusive: seven dates. Change only the convention to Day 0 and the same numeric visit day lands on 16 January. That one-day difference is why staff must read the schedule footnote instead of choosing a convention from memory. The calculator performs date arithmetic; it does not interpret the sponsor’s protocol language or approve a date. Assumptions and limits The tool counts calendar days. Weekends and public holidays are included, and a clinic closure does not change the protocol window. Use separate scheduling judgment to choose a bookable appointment. If your protocol defines business days, a variable anchor, time-of-day requirements or an assessment-specific window, this result needs additional review. Enter whole-number study days and nonnegative early/late allowances. Under the Day 1 convention there is no Day 0; negative study days refer to days before the anchor. Check the anchor’s actual date, not the appointment that was originally planned. A delayed qualifying event can change later targets when the protocol counts from that event. Use the result without losing the protocol context Copy or export the result with its inputs so another staff member can reproduce the calculation. A date without the convention and anchor is not enough. Print the result for a planning discussion if useful, but file clinical scheduling decisions in the appropriate study record rather than relying on this public calculator. Read the visit-window guide (https://kyrostrials.com/resources/how-to-calculate-visit-windows) for asymmetric allowances and examples. If the actual visit falls outside the permitted dates, document what happened and follow protocol and reporting requirements. Do not change the anchor merely to make a late visit appear in window. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/tools/site-budget-calculator) ============================================================================= Worked example: a planning budget Illustrative example: a $500 visit occurs four times and a $100 assessment occurs twice for one participant. Direct procedure cost is $2,200. Applying 25% overhead to those procedure costs gives $2,750 per participant. For ten participants, that is $27,500. Four expected screen fails at $250 add $1,000; start-up of $3,000 and close-out of $1,500 add $4,500. The estimated study total is $33,000. These are hypothetical inputs, not recommended fees or Kyros Trials customer results. Use your negotiated or proposed amounts. The calculator separates recurring participant procedures from fixed fees so that changing expected enrollment does not silently multiply a start-up charge. Assumptions and limits Overhead applies to per-participant procedure costs only. The tool does not apply overhead to screen-fail reimbursement or fixed fees. Negative and nonfinite values are treated as zero; participant and screen-fail counts are whole counts. Review every input because a mathematically valid estimate can still omit important work. The estimate does not determine invoice eligibility, sponsor payment timing, holdbacks, taxes or dispute terms. A procedure budget can differ from the milestone structure in the signed clinical trial agreement. Use the negotiated agreement and source evidence to decide what is earned. This public planning tool is not an accounting ledger or an automated contract interpreter. Export, review and reconcile Download the CSV with the assumptions and calculated totals, or print the page for a budget discussion. Review line labels and quantities with the coordinator and finance team. Include staff time and procedure costs consistently rather than counting the same activity both in a visit fee and as a separate assessment. Use the fee-schedule reconciliation guide (https://kyrostrials.com/resources/clinical-trial-fee-schedule-reconciliation) to distinguish a planned budget from eligible unbilled work. In sponsor invoicing (https://kyrostrials.com/sponsor-invoicing), staff configure milestone fees and entered or verified triggers. The agreement still determines entitlement; an estimate here does not establish that an item can be invoiced. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/templates/delegation-log) ========================================================================= When this record is needed Use delegation of authority according to the protocol, sponsor requirements and your site procedures. ICH E6(R3) (https://www.fda.gov/media/169090/download) describes investigator oversight and essential records; 21 CFR 312.62 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-D/section-312.62) addresses applicable investigator records and retention. Neither source mandates this exact downloadable layout for every study. Agree on the record’s owner, update frequency and filing location before using the template. A form should help reconstruct what happened, not create a parallel tracker with conflicting information. Keep original supporting records and use the approved study convention for identifiers and dates. Filled example, not real study data A sample coordinator is authorized for source entry from 27 October 2026 after the required training. The row records the task code, start date, staff signature reference and investigator authorization date. It does not backdate permission to cover earlier work. The example is deliberately limited. Do not put live identifiers into a public download preview or email request. Adapt the field explanations with your study team, then check that an independent reviewer can identify the responsible person, event, date and supporting evidence without an oral explanation. Review risks before monitoring Common review risks include missing dates, unclear task or criterion references, signatures that cannot be tied to a person, and entries that contradict the source record. These are practical checks, not a claim about the frequency of findings in an inspection dataset. Review one row against its supporting evidence before treating the log as ready. Do not overwrite an earlier entry to make the file look current. Record changes using your site’s correction procedure and retain the earlier information. A late explanation does not erase the original issue or change whether a deviation must be reported. Confirm reporting requirements with the protocol, sponsor and IRB. How Kyros Trials handles the related work The delegation workflow keeps study-related staff responsibilities and review records connected. Confirm training and authorization before a staff member performs the task; electronic storage alone does not authorize a person. The template remains a free planning and record-format aid. Electronic workflows add record context and access controls, but your team still owns intended-use review, training, investigator oversight and retention. Inspect the corresponding workflow in a demo and compare it with your site’s procedure before switching from paper. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/templates/screening-log) ======================================================================== When this record is needed Use screening and enrollment according to the protocol, sponsor requirements and your site procedures. ICH E6(R3) (https://www.fda.gov/media/169090/download) describes investigator oversight and essential records; 21 CFR 312.62 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-D/section-312.62) addresses applicable investigator records and retention. Neither source mandates this exact downloadable layout for every study. Agree on the record’s owner, update frequency and filing location before using the template. A form should help reconstruct what happened, not create a parallel tracker with conflicting information. Keep original supporting records and use the approved study convention for identifiers and dates. Filled example, not real study data Sample record S-012 was screened on 27 October 2026 after consent version 2 was recorded. Staff document criterion 4 as not met, mark the screening outcome accordingly and leave the enrolled field as No. This is a made-up record, not a participant or a recommended eligibility finding. The example is deliberately limited. Do not put live identifiers into a public download preview or email request. Adapt the field explanations with your study team, then check that an independent reviewer can identify the responsible person, event, date and supporting evidence without an oral explanation. Review risks before monitoring Common review risks include missing dates, unclear task or criterion references, signatures that cannot be tied to a person, and entries that contradict the source record. These are practical checks, not a claim about the frequency of findings in an inspection dataset. Review one row against its supporting evidence before treating the log as ready. Do not overwrite an earlier entry to make the file look current. Record changes using your site’s correction procedure and retain the earlier information. A late explanation does not erase the original issue or change whether a deviation must be reported. Confirm reporting requirements with the protocol, sponsor and IRB. How Kyros Trials handles the related work The recruiting pipeline records screening stages and screen-fail reasons separately from randomized study progress. Staff make eligibility decisions. The screening log and consent evidence should be reconciled rather than treating an automated prescreen summary as the study screening result. The template remains a free planning and record-format aid. Electronic workflows add record context and access controls, but your team still owns intended-use review, training, investigator oversight and retention. Inspect the corresponding workflow in a demo and compare it with your site’s procedure before switching from paper. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/templates/note-to-file) ======================================================================= When this record is needed Use a note to file according to the protocol, sponsor requirements and your site procedures. ICH E6(R3) (https://www.fda.gov/media/169090/download) describes investigator oversight and essential records; 21 CFR 312.62 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-312/subpart-D/section-312.62) addresses applicable investigator records and retention. Neither source mandates this exact downloadable layout for every study. Agree on the record’s owner, update frequency and filing location before using the template. A form should help reconstruct what happened, not create a parallel tracker with conflicting information. Keep original supporting records and use the approved study convention for identifiers and dates. Filled example, not real study data A sample note explains that a Week 4 entry was documented late. It identifies the actual procedure date, the date of the note, what evidence was reviewed and the corrective action. The author signs on the real writing date; the note is not backdated or used to conceal the late entry. The example is deliberately limited. Do not put live identifiers into a public download preview or email request. Adapt the field explanations with your study team, then check that an independent reviewer can identify the responsible person, event, date and supporting evidence without an oral explanation. Review risks before monitoring Common review risks include missing dates, unclear task or criterion references, signatures that cannot be tied to a person, and entries that contradict the source record. These are practical checks, not a claim about the frequency of findings in an inspection dataset. Review one row against its supporting evidence before treating the log as ready. Do not overwrite an earlier entry to make the file look current. Record changes using your site’s correction procedure and retain the earlier information. A late explanation does not erase the original issue or change whether a deviation must be reported. Confirm reporting requirements with the protocol, sponsor and IRB. How Kyros Trials handles the related work Use the regulated-record change or deviation workflow for the underlying issue, with a reason and retained history. A note explains context; it does not replace a required correction, deviation report, consent record or investigator review. The template remains a free planning and record-format aid. Electronic workflows add record context and access controls, but your team still owns intended-use review, training, investigator oversight and retention. Inspect the corresponding workflow in a demo and compare it with your site’s procedure before switching from paper. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) ====================================================== Security and accountable access Read the security overview (https://kyrostrials.com/security) for role-based access, company isolation, change history and signing controls. Security review should consider your intended use, staff procedures and provider arrangements, not just a product label. Ask for current documents before sharing sensitive study information. Request our security summary at legal@kyrostrials.com. Include your business contact and the scope of the review, but no participant records. Public summaries are starting points for procurement; they are not executed customer agreements or third-party certifications. Privacy and participant information The privacy policy (https://kyrostrials.com/privacy) explains website and business-contact information. The consumer health data policy (https://kyrostrials.com/consumer-health-data) covers prescreen health answers, consent choices and applicable rights. Distinguish public website requests from clinical records the site controls. Keep health details out of demo and support messages unless an appropriate transfer method has been agreed. Site staff remain responsible for the participant-facing privacy and consent process in the study. Contact privacy@kyrostrials.com for a rights or handling question rather than placing identifiers in a public form. AI and human responsibility The AI summary (https://kyrostrials.com/ai) describes assistive drafts, named approval, logging and participant-facing notices. Optional AI depends on the plan and configured services. It does not decide eligibility, sign or send on its own. Your staff review output before using it. We never sell your data. Customer data is not used to train AI models. Request the current processing and provider information during your review. Do not infer a particular provider agreement, BAA execution or universal suitability from the availability of an AI button. Part 11 and site procedures The Part 11 statement (https://kyrostrials.com/part-11) describes audit, access and signature support. Review the research-site guide (https://kyrostrials.com/resources/21-cfr-part-11-for-research-sites) for the distinction between technical controls and site responsibilities. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system. Your site establishes intended use, training, delegation, review and retention. A signature with password re-entry is one part of that process, not an independent regulatory finding. Ask to inspect a sample correction and signature record rather than relying on a compliance badge. Contracts are summaries, not signed terms The subscription terms (https://kyrostrials.com/terms), DPA (https://kyrostrials.com/dpa), BAA (https://kyrostrials.com/baa), SLA (https://kyrostrials.com/sla), subprocessor notice (https://kyrostrials.com/subprocessors) and exit policy (https://kyrostrials.com/data-retention) are public summaries. The full documents are in final legal review and available on request. Their public length or layout does not establish that an agreement has been executed. BAA readiness and infrastructure status must be confirmed before sensitive use. Exit arrangements should cover exports, audit history, signatures, archive access and legal holds. Review those requirements before adoption, not only when you decide to cancel. We do not delete customer records for non-payment. Accessibility and reporting a barrier The accessibility statement (https://kyrostrials.com/accessibility) describes the WCAG 2.1 AA target and evaluation status. Keyboard controls, focus visibility, readable tables and announced form states support access, but automated checks do not establish complete conformance. If a page blocks your work, contact support@kyrostrials.com with the page, device and what you were trying to do. Do not include participant data in the report. We can discuss an alternative way to obtain the information while reviewing the barrier. Keep the report specific enough to reproduce without disclosing clinical records. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/terms) ====================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review subscription 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 billing periods, included workflows, permitted users and exit arrangements. 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 the agreed subscription term and your organization’s approval. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/baa) ==================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review health-information readiness. 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 intended data categories, permitted uses, provider arrangements and incident responsibilities. 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 whether the intended processing arrangement and agreement are ready. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/dpa) ==================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review processing instructions. 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 data categories, purposes, rights requests and provider responsibilities. 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 your site’s lawful instructions and participant-facing obligations. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/sla) ==================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review service and support 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 support contacts, interruption communication and the applicable service measures. 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 your contingency procedures during unavailable service. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/subprocessors) ============================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review provider 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 the current provider notice, processing locations and service responsibilities. 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 which arrangements meet your privacy and procurement requirements. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/ai) =================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review AI 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 disclosure, configured availability, draft review and output handling. 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 a named person’s decision before using an AI draft. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/data-retention) =============================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review retention and exit planning. 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 original records, audit history, signatures, legal holds and export formats. 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 the retention period and archive arrangements for each study. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/part-11) ======================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review electronic-record controls. 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 intended use, audit review, access, signing procedures and record retention. 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 your site’s validation, procedures, training and oversight. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/security) ========================================================= Access control and staff roles Kyros Trials uses individual accounts, role-based access and study-scoped reviewer workflows. A coordinator, investigator, finance user and outside monitor do not need the same permissions. Review the exact records each role can reach during your adoption checks. Invitation and account administration are separate from granting study access. Password rules, session controls and optional two-factor sign-in support account security. Signer two-factor requirements can apply through the organization’s setting. Staff should not share credentials, and departing users need their access reviewed. These controls support accountable work; the site remains responsible for its identity and access procedures. Company data isolation Organization context is established through the signed-in membership and effective-role workflow. Switching companies cancels queries, clears cached data and reloads the view to avoid carrying stale records across companies. Database access policies enforce record authorization; the navigation menu is not the security boundary. Your organization should inspect a representative staff account and a scoped monitor account before onboarding a reviewer. Check both permitted records and records that must not be visible. Do not use production participant information as an informal access test in a public support conversation. Audit trail and controlled signatures Regulated changes use reasoned change or void workflows rather than ordinary deletion. Audit records retain responsible user, time, before/after values and reason. A void preserves the record and its history. Review the record-specific workflow because signing, locking and later correction are not identical for every record type. Electronic signatures carry identity, date/time and meaning, link to the signed record and require password re-entry through a server-verified process. The browser cannot simply assert that re-authentication occurred. Compliance depends on how each site validates and uses the system, including credential management, training and review. Infrastructure and backups: request current details This overview does not assert an unverified encryption configuration, backup interval, recovery objective, storage-region arrangement or executed provider agreement. Request the current hosting and recovery details for your procurement review. Confirm both database and file-storage handling rather than assuming one backup description covers all records. Your site should define continuity steps for unavailable service and maintain appropriate exports and original records. An accessible public endpoint is not evidence that a backup was restored successfully. Ask for the specific recovery scope and evidence relevant to your intended use; no guaranteed restoration time is published here. Incident response and vulnerability reports Report an interruption or suspected security issue to support@kyrostrials.com. Use a business contact, affected page, approximate time and reproducible description. Do not include participant data, passwords, access tokens or confidential files in ordinary email. Ask for an appropriate transfer method if supporting evidence contains sensitive information. Use the same contact for responsible vulnerability reporting and identify the issue as a security report. Do not access other users’ records, disrupt the service or test against clinical data to demonstrate impact. Current incident and response arrangements are available on request; this page does not invent a clean ninety-day history or a guaranteed response window. Procurement and customer data We never sell your data. Customer data is never used to train AI models. Kyros Trials staff access records only when requested support or the law requires it, with access limited to named people and logged. Request the current provider and agreement information before sensitive use. Customers can export records, including audits and signatures. We do not delete customer data for non-payment. Review the trust hub (https://kyrostrials.com/trust), data-retention summary (https://kyrostrials.com/data-retention) and Part 11 guide (https://kyrostrials.com/resources/21-cfr-part-11-for-research-sites) alongside your procedures. No third-party security certification is claimed. Public content supports review but is not an executed contract or a regulatory determination. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/privacy) ======================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review privacy 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 website contact details, account information and rights requests. 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 your choice about sharing business contact 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/consumer-health-data) ===================================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review health-answer privacy. 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 prescreen permission, rights requests, sharing and retention. 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 your consent choices and your research site’s study process. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/website-terms) ============================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review website use. 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 public resources, account access and participant-support boundaries. 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 using public information without treating it as clinical advice. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/acceptable-use) =============================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review responsible use. 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 account sharing, unauthorized access, harmful content and reporting misuse. 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 following site procedures and protecting other users’ records. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/sms-terms) ========================================================== Reader guidance, separate from the document This section explains how to review text-message choices. 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 consent, message frequency, charges and STOP or HELP options. 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 your communication preferences and appropriate use of text messages. 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/accessibility) ============================================================== 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 (https://kyrostrials.com/trust) for related policies and summaries and the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) 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. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/crio-alternative) ================================================================= Evaluate CRIO with your actual workflow Choose CRIO if its demonstrated product scope, implementation process and written terms fit your site. A publicly listed feature is a starting point, not evidence that every module is included in a particular quote. Ask the vendor to show one of your schedule patterns and explain the responsible user and record at each handoff. Keep the evaluation about fit, not a claim that another product lacks a feature because a public page did not describe it. Choose Kyros Trials if connected core site workflows and published subscription terms match your needs after a practical review. Starter, Site and Network have different limits and optional AI availability. Ask to inspect a Day 1 window, source correction, consent assignment and sponsor item with your coordinator, investigator and finance staff. The right decision depends on the workflow and contract, not a broad promise of superiority. Request a scoped quote and compare the evidence For CRIO, request a current written quote for the products, studies, users and locations you need. Not published marks a fact that the reviewed public material did not establish; it does not mean the capability is unavailable or that a quote would cost more. Vendor product pages are linked as sources. Numerical prices and package scope can differ across sales channels, so confirm the source and applicability of any public listing. Kyros Trials publishes Starter at $299 per month, Site at $599 per month and Network at $499 per location per month. Compare annual and monthly payment commitments separately. Ask both vendors about setup, training, support, renewal, exports, monitor users and archive access. Do not treat a public starting price as a total implementation cost or infer an SLA from the plan name. A migration path from CRIO Before leaving CRIO, obtain the relevant export specification and confirm access to original records. Review participants, actual visit dates, documents, negotiated fees and the historical signature and audit evidence separately. A CSV can move values without reconstructing how they changed in the previous system. Keep the old system available under your retention arrangement and ask its provider about read-only archive terms. Use the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) to plan the review. Kyros Trials has participant/visit mapping presets for CRIO, RealTime and generic spreadsheets; other exports require manual field review. Documents and fee schedules are an assisted migration scope rather than an automatic participant-CSV function. Review row errors, reconcile counts and inspect sample records before your staff approve the transition. Free migration is not a guarantee of a fixed go-live date or preservation of every historical event. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/realtime-ctms-alternative) ========================================================================== Evaluate RealTime-CTMS with your actual workflow Choose RealTime-CTMS if its demonstrated product scope, implementation process and written terms fit your site. A publicly listed feature is a starting point, not evidence that every module is included in a particular quote. Ask the vendor to show one of your schedule patterns and explain the responsible user and record at each handoff. Keep the evaluation about fit, not a claim that another product lacks a feature because a public page did not describe it. Choose Kyros Trials if connected core site workflows and published subscription terms match your needs after a practical review. Starter, Site and Network have different limits and optional AI availability. Ask to inspect a Day 1 window, source correction, consent assignment and sponsor item with your coordinator, investigator and finance staff. The right decision depends on the workflow and contract, not a broad promise of superiority. Request a scoped quote and compare the evidence For RealTime-CTMS, request a current written quote for the products, studies, users and locations you need. Not published marks a fact that the reviewed public material did not establish; it does not mean the capability is unavailable or that a quote would cost more. Vendor product pages are linked as sources. Numerical prices and package scope can differ across sales channels, so confirm the source and applicability of any public listing. Kyros Trials publishes Starter at $299 per month, Site at $599 per month and Network at $499 per location per month. Compare annual and monthly payment commitments separately. Ask both vendors about setup, training, support, renewal, exports, monitor users and archive access. Do not treat a public starting price as a total implementation cost or infer an SLA from the plan name. A migration path from RealTime-CTMS Before leaving RealTime-CTMS, obtain the relevant export specification and confirm access to original records. Review participants, actual visit dates, documents, negotiated fees and the historical signature and audit evidence separately. A CSV can move values without reconstructing how they changed in the previous system. Keep the old system available under your retention arrangement and ask its provider about read-only archive terms. Use the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) to plan the review. Kyros Trials has participant/visit mapping presets for CRIO, RealTime and generic spreadsheets; other exports require manual field review. Documents and fee schedules are an assisted migration scope rather than an automatic participant-CSV function. Review row errors, reconcile counts and inspect sample records before your staff approve the transition. Free migration is not a guarantee of a fixed go-live date or preservation of every historical event. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/clinical-conductor-alternative) =============================================================================== Evaluate Clinical Conductor with your actual workflow Choose Clinical Conductor if its demonstrated product scope, implementation process and written terms fit your site. A publicly listed feature is a starting point, not evidence that every module is included in a particular quote. Ask the vendor to show one of your schedule patterns and explain the responsible user and record at each handoff. Keep the evaluation about fit, not a claim that another product lacks a feature because a public page did not describe it. Choose Kyros Trials if connected core site workflows and published subscription terms match your needs after a practical review. Starter, Site and Network have different limits and optional AI availability. Ask to inspect a Day 1 window, source correction, consent assignment and sponsor item with your coordinator, investigator and finance staff. The right decision depends on the workflow and contract, not a broad promise of superiority. Request a scoped quote and compare the evidence For Clinical Conductor, request a current written quote for the products, studies, users and locations you need. Not published marks a fact that the reviewed public material did not establish; it does not mean the capability is unavailable or that a quote would cost more. Vendor product pages are linked as sources. Numerical prices and package scope can differ across sales channels, so confirm the source and applicability of any public listing. Kyros Trials publishes Starter at $299 per month, Site at $599 per month and Network at $499 per location per month. Compare annual and monthly payment commitments separately. Ask both vendors about setup, training, support, renewal, exports, monitor users and archive access. Do not treat a public starting price as a total implementation cost or infer an SLA from the plan name. A migration path from Clinical Conductor Before leaving Clinical Conductor, obtain the relevant export specification and confirm access to original records. Review participants, actual visit dates, documents, negotiated fees and the historical signature and audit evidence separately. A CSV can move values without reconstructing how they changed in the previous system. Keep the old system available under your retention arrangement and ask its provider about read-only archive terms. Use the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) to plan the review. Kyros Trials has participant/visit mapping presets for CRIO, RealTime and generic spreadsheets; other exports require manual field review. Documents and fee schedules are an assisted migration scope rather than an automatic participant-CSV function. Review row errors, reconcile counts and inspect sample records before your staff approve the transition. Free migration is not a guarantee of a fixed go-live date or preservation of every historical event. Public reader guidance (https://kyrostrials.com/florence-ebinders-alternative) ============================================================================== Evaluate Florence eBinders with your actual workflow Choose Florence eBinders if its demonstrated product scope, implementation process and written terms fit your site. A publicly listed feature is a starting point, not evidence that every module is included in a particular quote. Ask the vendor to show one of your schedule patterns and explain the responsible user and record at each handoff. Keep the evaluation about fit, not a claim that another product lacks a feature because a public page did not describe it. Choose Kyros Trials if connected core site workflows and published subscription terms match your needs after a practical review. Starter, Site and Network have different limits and optional AI availability. Ask to inspect a Day 1 window, source correction, consent assignment and sponsor item with your coordinator, investigator and finance staff. The right decision depends on the workflow and contract, not a broad promise of superiority. Request a scoped quote and compare the evidence For Florence eBinders, request a current written quote for the products, studies, users and locations you need. Not published marks a fact that the reviewed public material did not establish; it does not mean the capability is unavailable or that a quote would cost more. Vendor product pages are linked as sources. Numerical prices and package scope can differ across sales channels, so confirm the source and applicability of any public listing. Kyros Trials publishes Starter at $299 per month, Site at $599 per month and Network at $499 per location per month. Compare annual and monthly payment commitments separately. Ask both vendors about setup, training, support, renewal, exports, monitor users and archive access. Do not treat a public starting price as a total implementation cost or infer an SLA from the plan name. A migration path from Florence eBinders Before leaving Florence eBinders, obtain the relevant export specification and confirm access to original records. Review participants, actual visit dates, documents, negotiated fees and the historical signature and audit evidence separately. A CSV can move values without reconstructing how they changed in the previous system. Keep the old system available under your retention arrangement and ask its provider about read-only archive terms. Use the switching guide (https://kyrostrials.com/switch) to plan the review. Kyros Trials has participant/visit mapping presets for CRIO, RealTime and generic spreadsheets; other exports require manual field review. Documents and fee schedules are an assisted migration scope rather than an automatic participant-CSV function. Review row errors, reconcile counts and inspect sample records before your staff approve the transition. Free migration is not a guarantee of a fixed go-live date or preservation of every historical event.