REDCap handles many multi-site projects well. The strain shows when sites sit in different institutions, countries and regulatory expectations, and one host has to govern all of them. Here is how to judge that, and what to look at instead.
Free sandbox · No credit card · 21 CFR Part 11 aligned
Sites active
4 of 5
Participants
58
Open queries
11
Sites behind target
1
Delayed ethics approval
Not yet activated
The short answer
Starting fair
Plenty of multi-centre studies run on REDCap, and many of them run well. Per university documentation (for example Queen Mary University of London, the George Washington University and the University of Wisconsin), an administrator creates Data Access Groups, assigns users to them and the users then see only records in their group; records they create are assigned to the group automatically. Users who need all sites are left outside any group. Some guides describe a DAG switcher for people who work across several sites. The feature is mature, widely documented and has a large community.
That works best when the sites are inside one institution or a trusted network, the host institution runs a responsive service with a team that supports multi-site designs, and the study team is comfortable owning configuration. The questions below test those assumptions for your own study. If most answers are yes, stay on REDCap and focus on REDCap true cost versus an EDC only if budget is the worry.
If you are weighing an alternative from the outset, the broader REDCap alternatives list is a good first stop; this page is specifically about the multi-site decision. For a straight feature comparison see Capture vs REDCap and REDCap vs EDC for clinical trials.
Multi-site, point by point
The REDCap column lists what institutional documentation says to check, attributed generally. It does not describe any particular instance.
| Multi-site need | REDCap: what to check | Capture |
|---|---|---|
| Separating site data | DAGs restrict users to their site's records. Creating DAGs is a high-level privilege; DAG and user-rights settings are separate layers, so review both. | Site-level roles and a separate site coordinator portal; by-site data filtering and exports |
| Accounts for outside collaborators | Policies vary: some hosts allow sponsored or limited accounts for outside researchers, others restrict them. Who vets and offboards? | Invite site staff into the study with the role they need |
| Participant numbering | Needs a convention enforced by configuration or procedure. | Site-level numbering such as 001-0042 |
| Enrolment at the site | Surveys can be distributed by link; check how participants are tied to a site. | Site-specific or study-specific QR codes, no app install |
| Consent across sites | Check how e-consent, versions and countersignature are handled and where evidence lives. | eConsent with email one-time code, countersignature and an exportable PDF. See eConsent for multi-site trials |
| Randomization and kits | Check what is native, what is a module and what must be validated locally. | Randomization in the platform; see clinical trial platform with randomization |
| Validation across sites | One host holds one validated state for all sites; each upgrade affects everyone. | Documentation to support sponsor validation and UAT for enterprise customers |
| Data residency by site | One instance means one location. Is that acceptable to every country involved? | Hosted in the EU (Frankfurt) or the USA (N. Virginia) |
General information from public university documentation read on 13 October 2026. Your institution's configuration may differ.
What a site sees
In a multi-site study the site experience matters as much as the central view. In Capture a site coordinator works in a separate portal limited to their site, participants are numbered per site, and the central team filters and exports by site. Researchers see coded IDs, while site coordinators see participant names.
Study owner
Builds and configures the study
Principal investigator
Oversees the site, signs off the casebook
Sub-investigator
Enters and signs clinical data
Study coordinator
Screens subjects, enters visit data
Monitor (CRA)
Verifies data, raises queries
Data manager
Reviews, freezes and locks data
Participant
Completes their own questionnaires
Create three mock sites, enrol demo participants by QR code and filter by site. Free sandbox, no credit card.
What you would have to build around it
Staying is a legitimate choice. It simply means owning the items below, ideally in your data management plan from the start.
Name who creates DAGs and assigns users, how site staff are onboarded and removed, and how training is recorded. Review user rights and DAG assignment on a schedule. Our multi-site clinical trial management guide sets out the central tasks.
Different countries and ethics committees expect different consent forms and records. Decide how versions are tracked and where signed evidence lives. See international multi-site trials for what changes across borders.
Every site depends on the host's validated state and upgrade timing. See REDCap hosting and validation burden.
Switch plan
Best done between visits or before the next site starts. Capture drafts forms from a described form or an uploaded file (CSV, XLSX, PDF, DOCX); you review everything. We do not claim project or data import.
Export the data dictionary, data and any audit logs the host allows. File them with the study documents and note the date.
Upload the data dictionary or describe the forms, review the AI draft, then add codes, ranges and edit checks. The templates library covers standard vital signs, adverse events, medication and laboratory forms.
Create each site, assign coordinators and researchers, and configure QR enrolment.
Run mock participants through the sandbox with a friendly site, record the evidence and fix issues before roll-out.
Move site by site where the protocol allows, documenting which participants are in which system and how the datasets are combined at analysis. See how to migrate from REDCap.
Yes. Institutional documentation describes Data Access Groups as the standard way to separate site data. Whether it is the best fit depends on hosting, accounts for outside collaborators and validation.
Hosted EDC platforms, from enterprise systems to self-serve ones. Capture is a self-serve option with a site coordinator portal, site-level numbering and QR enrolment, and a free sandbox. Evaluate any alternative on your own protocol.
Common reasons are sites in different institutions or countries, a sponsor that wants a vendor validation package, build queues at the host, or needing consent, ePRO and randomization in one record. Many studies stay and do well.
Capture uses site-level roles, a site coordinator portal and by-site filtering, with row-level security. The concept is similar but the mechanism differs. Test it in the sandbox.
Yes. Site-specific QR codes bring participants into the right site without an app install.
It is possible but needs planning. Archive REDCap data, rebuild forms with AI drafting, pilot with one site and cut over by site. We do not claim automated import.
Yes. Capture is suitable for Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies, including multi-site.
Open the free sandbox, with every feature and no credit card. You pay only when you go live.
Keep exploring
Capture vs REDCap
Head-to-head comparison.
REDCap alternatives
The wider alternatives list.
Multi-site clinical trial management
Central management tasks.
eConsent for multi-site trials
Consent across sites.
REDCap hosting and validation burden
What self-hosting involves.
How to migrate from REDCap
Step-by-step move.
Free sandbox, every feature. Sites, roles, QR enrolment and by-site exports. No credit card.