8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Jaime Kub
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.
Mercedes Cartwright-Dickinson
8.6
- - Patient Engagement
- - 8 weeks August - September 2023
- - Clinical Research Organization
Reviewed:
Impressive patient engagement strategies, significant improvement in recruitment rates.
The patient engagement strategies implemented were impressive and led to a significant improvement in our recruitment rates. The team's experience in patient-centered approaches was evident and made a real difference.
Shannon Schiller
9.5
- - Gene Therapy Development
- - 12 weeks January - March 2023
- - Research Institution
Reviewed:
Innovative approach to gene therapy development, collaborative team.
The gene therapy project was managed exceptionally well, with innovative solutions provided at every stage. The team was highly collaborative and receptive to feedback, making it a truly joint effort. The results exceeded expectations.
Tracey Mayer
9.4
- - Health Technology Assessment
- - 10 weeks September - November 2023
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Thorough and insightful health technology assessment.
The health technology assessment was thorough and provided valuable insights that were critical to our decision-making process. The team demonstrated a deep understanding of the health economics involved and delivered a well-rounded analysis.
Wilbert Jerde
5.4
- - Process Development
- - 14 weeks June - September 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Process development project faced delays, communication issues.
The process development project encountered multiple delays, and communication was inconsistent. We had to extend our project timeline due to the setbacks, and this impacted our overall production schedule. The team was capable but seemed overextended.
Jeremy Douglas
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.
Eula Schaefer
9
- - Clinical Protocol Design
- - 6 weeks April - May 2023
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Comprehensive protocol design, very detailed and precise.
The protocol design provided was comprehensive and very detailed. It laid a strong foundation for our clinical trial, ensuring that all regulatory and ethical considerations were addressed. The attention to detail was impressive.
Inez Rath
8.9
- - Regulatory Submission
- - 6 weeks February 2023
- - Biotech Startup
Reviewed:
Professional and knowledgeable, seamless regulatory submission process.
Our regulatory submission was handled with great care and expertise. The process was seamless, and their knowledge of the regulatory landscape was impressive. The team's support was invaluable, and I would not hesitate to use their services again.
Dr. Scott Hand
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.
