8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Santos Lindgren
8.9
- - Stability Studies
- - 18 months January 2023 - June 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Accurate and reliable stability studies, clear reporting.
The stability studies were conducted with precision, and the reporting was clear and thorough. The results provided us with the necessary data to proceed with our regulatory submissions confidently.
Bridget Labadie
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.
Leona Morissette
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.
Sylvia Legros
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.
Joe Auer
6
- - Health Technology Assessment
- - 8 weeks July - September 2024
- - Pharmaceutical Company
Reviewed:
Health technology assessment was superficial, lacked thorough analysis.
The health technology assessment (HTA) was superficial and did not provide the level of thorough analysis we needed. Some important factors were overlooked, and we had to request additional work to cover these gaps. The overall experience was disappointing.
Julius Bergnaum
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.
Brad Leannon
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.
Genevieve Reichert
8.9
- - Medical Writing
- - 5 weeks October - November 2023
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Top-quality medical writing, clear and precise documents.
The medical writing services provided were of top quality. The documents were clear, precise, and tailored to meet the specific requirements of our regulatory submissions. The team's expertise was evident throughout the process.
