8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Dianne Fadel
6.5
- - Regulatory Submission
- - 8 weeks May - July 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Regulatory submission was incomplete, required additional work.
The initial regulatory submission provided was incomplete, requiring additional work to meet the necessary standards. This resulted in unexpected costs and delays. The team corrected the issues, but it should have been right the first time.
Beatrice Franey
5.7
- - Project Management
- - 12 weeks March - May 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Poor communication and missed deadlines caused frustration.
Communication from the project management team was poor, with frequent missed deadlines. This caused significant frustration on our end, as we had to repeatedly chase them for updates. The project eventually got back on track, but the delays were problematic.
Clark Shields
8.8
- - Companion Diagnostics Development
- - 16 weeks January - May 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
High-quality companion diagnostics development, delivered on time.
The development of companion diagnostics was of high quality, and the project was delivered on time. The team's technical expertise and understanding of the regulatory environment were key to the success of the project.
Caleb Muller
9.3
- - Market Access Strategy
- - 6 weeks January - February 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Strategic market access analysis, insightful recommendations.
The market access analysis provided strategic insights that were crucial to our launch strategy. The team's recommendations were data-driven and actionable, helping us to make informed decisions.
Eugene Waelchi
9.1
- - Clinical Data Management
- - 6 weeks June - July 2023
- - CRO
Reviewed:
Timely and accurate data management, great collaboration.
The data management services were delivered on time and with great accuracy. Collaboration with the team was smooth, and they were always available to address any concerns or questions we had. We were very satisfied with the outcome.
Dr. Antoinette Marquardt
6.2
- - Clinical Protocol Design
- - 10 weeks January - March 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Inconsistent quality of deliverables, frequent revisions needed.
The protocol design process required multiple revisions due to inconsistencies in the deliverables. Although the team was responsive to feedback, the back-and-forth extended the timeline beyond what was originally agreed upon.
Simon Ullrich
9.1
- - HTA Submission
- - 8 weeks February - March 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Comprehensive and well-executed HTA submission.
The HTA submission was comprehensive and well-executed. The team managed the complexities of the submission process expertly, ensuring that all necessary data was included and well-presented.
