8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Mr. Cory Graham
8.8
- - Biostatistical Design
- - 4 weeks May - June 2023
- - Research Institution
Reviewed:
Excellent biostatistical support, clear and actionable insights.
The biostatistical support provided was top-notch, offering clear and actionable insights that were critical to the success of our study. The team was responsive and worked closely with us to ensure the analysis met our specific needs.
Mrs. Wanda Jones
5.8
- - Biostatistical Design
- - 6 weeks February - March 2024
- - Research Institution
Reviewed:
Biostatistical analysis lacked depth, missed key insights.
The biostatistical analysis provided was not as thorough as we had hoped. Some key insights were missed, and we had to engage another provider to get the level of detail we needed. The team seemed overworked and under-resourced.
Lee Glover
8.7
- - Patient Recruitment
- - 8 weeks March - April 2023
- - Clinical Research Organization
Reviewed:
Highly effective patient recruitment strategies, project completed on time.
The patient recruitment strategies were highly effective, and the project was completed within the agreed timeframe. The team was very professional, and their expertise in patient engagement was evident throughout.
Donna Kihn
9
- - Process Development
- - 12 weeks March - May 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Expert process development, enhanced efficiency.
The process development services enhanced our manufacturing efficiency significantly. The team's expertise in process optimization was evident, and they provided valuable insights that improved our production workflow.
Everett Effertz
6.3
- - Stability Studies
- - 16 months July 2023 - November 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Stability studies lacked detail, required additional validation.
The stability studies conducted were lacking in detail, and we had to perform additional validation to ensure the results were reliable. This added extra time and cost to the project. The team was responsive to feedback, but the initial work was subpar.
