8.7
Excellent
376 reviews
- Communication
- 8.8
- Timeliness
- 8.9
- Accuracy
- 7.6
- Staff
- 8.8
- Value
- 8.9
Karen Ziemann
9.1
- - HTA Submission
- - 8 weeks February - March 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Comprehensive and well-executed HTA submission.
The HTA submission was comprehensive and well-executed. The team managed the complexities of the submission process expertly, ensuring that all necessary data was included and well-presented.
Cristina Ferry
5.6
- - Clinical Data Management
- - 8 weeks December 2023 - February 2024
- - Biotech Company
Reviewed:
Delayed delivery and lack of communication during the project.
The data management services were delayed, and communication from the team was lacking. It was difficult to get updates, and when the deliverables arrived, they were not as polished as expected. The delays impacted our project timeline significantly.
Dr. Heather Kautzer
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.
Candice Hane
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.
Ada Hessel
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.
Ginger Abshire-Bauch
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.
Mr. Oliver Braun III
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.
Sonya Yost
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.