Welcome to Clinical Trial Confidential.
We believe the clinical trial industry lacks a platform for open, transparent conversation. This lack of transparency inhibits progress. In this industry, that means patients are the ones that suffer.
Here you can choose to register an account, post anonymously or both. It is our hope that the ability to post anonymously will help foster useful conversation by allowing users to express their opinions without fear of retaliation, fear of appearing ignorant and otherwise allowing users to express opinions that may be contrary to their employer or that their position may not permit.
We believe great ideas should stand on their own merit and not the credentials of their author.
We hope these values will foster an environment of collaboration.
Quote from Guest on August 3, 2023, 8:22 pmStrange choice, from what we have seen their software was not great. The site operations was what made them compelling, the software had issues and in many places and just wasn't up to our standards (also compliance questions).
They do not have enough people in leadership positions with the requisite clinical trial experience to be trusted. From my experience they were too cavalier with their compliance and documentation.
Quote from Guest on August 4, 2023, 7:44 pmQuote from Guest on August 3, 2023, 8:22 pmStrange choice, from what we have seen their software was not great. The site operations was what made them compelling, the software had issues and in many places and just wasn't up to our standards (also compliance questions).
They do not have enough people in leadership positions with the requisite clinical trial experience to be trusted. From my experience they were too cavalier with their compliance and documentation.
i keep reading mentions of their lack of compliance. what does that mean exactly? it's not 21 cfr 11? something else specifically?
Quote from brad on August 4, 2023, 7:47 pmQuote from Guest on August 4, 2023, 7:44 pmQuote from Guest on August 3, 2023, 8:22 pmStrange choice, from what we have seen their software was not great. The site operations was what made them compelling, the software had issues and in many places and just wasn't up to our standards (also compliance questions).
They do not have enough people in leadership positions with the requisite clinical trial experience to be trusted. From my experience they were too cavalier with their compliance and documentation.
i keep reading mentions of their lack of compliance. what does that mean exactly? it's not 21 cfr 11? something else specifically?
not sure about their compliance, but it did seem like they hired some junior people from other DCT companies like S37 to serve in operations leadership. I'm sure they're capable, but they were maybe too green.
i'm sure we all know how difficult it is to build a platform that's useful to site staff and patients...I feel like Curebase underestimated how hard it is to balance ops and tech. should have really leaned into all the Science37 people they hired...
in talking to people who have seen a first hand demo, the consensus is that the company was still too early and there were better options out there. Now they're joining an even more saturated market. all i can say is...good luck.
