One workflow, done properly: read a Crohn's or ulcerative colitis protocol, write its eligibility out so the whole team reads it the same way, and work through your screening list in a sensible order. It starts with the documents and lists your team already keeps.
Phase III Protocol — Moderate-to-Severe Crohn's Disease
84 pages · sample document
Fig. 1Worked example: a fictional Phase III Crohn's protocol resolved into eligibility criteria. Document, counts, and timeline are synthetic.
Why a tool for one disease area rather than all of them.
Recruitment software that covers every therapeutic area tends to model eligibility as a flat list of inclusion and exclusion strings. IBD does not behave that way. Disease activity is composite and index-dependent, endoscopic scoring is centrally read and often the rate-limiting step, and prior-therapy language carries clinical meaning that a keyword match discards. A general tool loses precisely the details that decide whether a candidate is worth a screening visit.
TrialFlow is narrow on purpose. It encodes the vocabulary of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis — CDAI and its subscores, SES-CD, the Mayo score and its endoscopic component, disease extent and duration, biologic and immunomodulator exposure, corticosteroid dependence — and treats each as a structured, checkable field rather than text.
Nothing here runs on its own. Every reading is a draft until a person on your team accepts it, every score shows the reasoning behind it, and we hold no hospital records. The figures on this page are worked examples built from invented data.
A single moderate-to-severe Crohn's protocol can carry a CDAI window, an SES-CD threshold, a stool-frequency and abdominal-pain subscore floor, a corticosteroid taper rule, and three separate prior-biologic clauses. They sit in different sections, written in different registers, and two coordinators reading the same document reach different shortlists.
Because central read of endoscopy is the gating step, an ineligible candidate is often identified after the scope has been done and read. The cost is not only the procedure; it is the coordinator hours, the scheduling slot, and the participant's willingness to be approached again.
Scope reports, biologic exposure histories, calprotectin and CRP panels, and taper records are reconciled by hand into a working note. The clinical judgement takes minutes. Assembling the material to support it takes hours.
Reading the protocol, reviewing candidates, and watching enrollment — built so your team can check the working, not just the answer.
Someone has to sit down with a Crohn's or UC protocol and write out what it actually asks for: activity indices and their windows, endoscopic thresholds, prior-therapy rules, exclusions. We do that work with you, and every line points back to the clause it came from so you can check our reading before you trust it.
How it worksCandidate profiles your team puts in are compared against that reading. Each one comes back with what it met, what it did not, and the one thing a coordinator should check next. A number without the reasoning behind it is not much use to anyone.
How it worksEnrollment against plan, how each GI site is doing, and why screens are failing. The point is to notice the pattern early enough to do something about it, while the study is still open.
How it worksA protocol comes in as a document and comes out as a plain list of what it asks for: activity windows, endoscopic thresholds, prior-therapy rules, exclusions — each one traceable to the sentence it came from.
Candidate profiles are compared against the eligibility your team signed off on. The reasoning sits beside the score, along with the one thing a coordinator should check next.
Site 004 — Northside GI
Basis for the score
Site 002 — Lakeview IBD Center
Basis for the score
Site 007 — Riverbend Gastroenterology
Basis for the score
Fig. 3Fictional candidate profiles. Names, sites, and scores are invented for demonstration — no real patient record is represented here.
Enrollment against plan, throughput by GI site, and the shape of screen failure — measured so recruitment strategy can change while the study is still running.
Sample Crohn's study CD-3021
72%
of the planned enrollment target
10 mo
projected completion
Modelled on synthetic data
Read from the synthetic series above
Fig. 4Synthetic enrollment series for a fictional multi-site Crohn's study.
The study team uploads the Crohn's or ulcerative colitis protocol into a private workspace. Nothing leaves it.
Activity indices, endoscopic thresholds, therapy history, and exclusions are laid out one by one, each with the clause it came from sitting next to it.
It stays a draft until someone on your team says it is right. Every edit is kept, and the version you accepted is the one candidates are compared against.
Ranked profiles and site-level enrollment metrics inform where outreach effort goes next. The decision stays with the investigator.
A static walkthrough of the console using a fictional Phase III Crohn's disease study.
TrialFlow workspace
Worked examplePopulated with a fictional IBD study for demonstration.
Study
Eligibility
Age 18–75 at screening
Endoscopically confirmed CD ≥ 3 months
CDAI 220–450 with SES-CD ≥ 6
Inadequate response to a biologic or immunomodulator
Exclusions
Bowel resection within 6 months
Ostomy or short bowel syndrome
Active abdominal abscess or C. difficile
Isolated perianal-only disease
Output status
Showing a pre-generated summary. Nothing is uploaded or processed here.
Worked example — a static preview of the workspace. It does not connect to hospital records and does not process real patient data.
Fig. 5Interface preview. Not a live system; no records are queried.
Tell us about the protocol you are screening against and where the screening effort actually goes. We will walk through the three components against your example.