8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Willie Purdy
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.
Delores Kunde
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.
Ernestine Schamberger
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.
Walter Greenholt
9
- - Biomarker Development
- - 12 weeks October 2023 - January 2024
- - Research Institution
Reviewed:
Efficient and precise biomarker development.
The biomarker development project was managed efficiently, with precise results that met our project objectives. The team's expertise in biomarker research was invaluable, and we were impressed with the quality of the deliverables.
William Kling
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.
Pablo Steuber
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.
Elaine Volkman
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.
Richard Gottlieb
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.
