8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Linda Bergstrom
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.
Malcolm Graham
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.
Noah Kreiger
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.
Belinda Zieme
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.
Alexandra Ortiz
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.
