Clinical trial recruiting with staff-led screening.
Bring prescreen responses into a staff review queue while keeping eligibility decisions with your study team.
Kyros Trials / Sample workspace
CARD-204 / Prescreen review
- 01Response received
- 02Staff review queue
- 03Next contact planned
- Candidate
- Candidate R-012
- Prescreen
- Reviewed by study staff
- Review state
- Invite for screening if appropriate
- Eligibility
- Only study staff decide
No autonomous enrollment or outreach
What breaks today
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.
01The candidate answered, but nobody knows who follows up.
A shareable questionnaire needs a staff handoff. Candidate stage and review context help the site distinguish a new response from a reviewed record. The next contact belongs to authorized staff, not to an automated output that quietly moves someone into a study. In WCG’s 2025 survey, 37% of U.S.-based sites selected clinical-trial complexity among their top three issues. Third-party research. Not Kyros Trials customer results.
02A prescreen summary sounds more certain than it should.
Prescreening is preliminary. A response may suggest a possible match for screening, but staff must verify criteria and perform the required study process. An automated summary should be disclosed and reviewed rather than presented as an eligibility decision or a promise of treatment.
03We’re reporting enrollment, but counting people who failed screening.
Candidate activity is useful for recruiting operations, while screen-fail reasons explain a different part of the funnel. Keep those outcomes separate from randomized study progress. A fuller recruiting picture comes from identifiable stages, not a single total that combines incompatible measures.
Recruiting and prescreen
A potential match is not an eligibility decision.
Prescreening helps staff organize a conversation. It must not replace informed consent, study screening or the investigator's judgment. AI availability depends on configuration.
Study prescreen / Introduction
Sample workflow- Disclosure
- Automated assistant
- Before health questions
- Participant consent
- Alternative
- Contact the study team
Illustrative workflow. Not live records or customer results.
What’s included
These are core site workflows, available with Advanced off. Access still follows your staff roles and study permissions. Optional AI depends on the plan and service configuration.
- 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.
Controls and site responsibilities
Use this mapping to structure your review, not as a regulatory determination. Regulations and guidance describe expectations; your intended use, procedures, training and evidence determine how the workflow supports your study.
| Regulation or requirement | What Kyros Trials does | What your site still owns |
|---|---|---|
| IRB review of recruiting material | Provides study-specific criteria and a prescreen entry point. | Submit scripts and recruitment materials for required review; control approved versions. |
| FTC truthful AI claims | Discloses automated interaction and retains staff decision responsibility. | Review advertising and disclosures; do not imply an automated eligibility determination. |
| Applicable state AI notices | Supports automated-assistant disclosure and human contact. | 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.
How it connects
The clinical trial recruiting with staff-led screening workflow feeds the next site record while preserving the distinction between captured information, staff review and an authorized action.
- 01
Prescreen
- 02
Staff review
- 03
Screening
- 04
Consent
A connected record is not an automatic approval. Staff check the underlying evidence, confirm permissions and decide when the next step is appropriate. The sample demonstrates a handoff; it does not access clinical records or imply a measured customer result.
Before and after, at the site
| Site task | Paper or spreadsheets | Kyros Trials |
|---|---|---|
| Receive interest | Emails and notes lack a consistent stage. | Candidate records organized in the recruiting pipeline. |
| Collect initial answers | A script is repeated without a shared handoff. | Study prescreen responses available for staff review. |
| Explain automation | A chatbot is presented as a person. | Disclosure and permission precede automated health questions. |
| Decide next contact | A preliminary score is treated as a decision. | Authorized staff review and choose the next step. |
| Report screening | Screen fails disappear or inflate enrollment totals. | Reasons retained separately from randomized progress. |
Workflow comparison, not a claim of time saved or improved clinical outcomes. Review the steps against your own protocol and operating procedures.
Bring your data from CRIO, RealTime-CTMS or spreadsheets
Start with a de-identified export and agree on the field mapping before moving records. Staff review identifiers, dates, statuses and the destination structure. Keep the original records available under your retention policy; a CSV import does not reconstruct another system’s audit trail. Document and historical-record migration require a separate review of available exports and file structure.
Published pricing, before the demo
Included in every plan. Published price: $599 per site per month.
That is the Site plan price. Starter is $299 per month with its study limits; Network is $499 per location per month for two or more locations. Core modules are included across plans. AI drafting and prescreen chat are Site and Network options and require configuration. Review current terms and limits before selecting a plan.
Review plans and pricingQuestions before you choose
Answers to the questions research sites ask most.
Still have questions? Book a demo
See your own protocol in Kyros Trials.
Walk through your visit schedule, source records and sponsor billing with our team.
Book a 20-minute demo