Site lists built on past trial participation tend to repeat past enrollment. Clinical trial site selection analytics ranks sites using de-identified real-world patient data, so site feasibility reflects the patients each site treats now rather than who it enrolled before. That shows where a list misses part of the eligible population.

An external control arm uses de-identified real-world patient records in place of a randomized control group, typically where randomization is not feasible or ethical: rare disease, pediatric populations, single-arm oncology studies. Any external control needs records deep enough to follow the comparator population’s outcomes over time.

No. A CTMS or EDC system runs a trial you have already designed: sites, visits, case report forms, documents. Komodo works upstream of that on the decisions that set the trial’s shape: which population is eligible, which criteria narrow it, and which sites treat those patients. The two sit at different points in the timeline.

The Healthcare Map covers the United States. For a global program, it supports U.S. population sizing, U.S. site selection, and U.S. comparator cohorts, and clinical teams typically pair it with other sources for ex-U.S. planning.

Komodo does not replace the CRO. It gives you a patient-level view of the eligible population and the sites treating them, so CRO site recommendations can be evaluated against observed treatment volume rather than accepted on estimates alone.