Insights & thinking
Perspectives on clinical research, real-world evidence, and what it takes to deliver great science remotely.
More process does not equal better science — especially for low-risk observational and nutritional studies. The hidden costs of over-engineering are often larger than the visible ones.
More process does not equal better science — especially for low-risk observational and nutritional studies. The hidden costs of over-engineering are often larger than the visible ones.
Recruitment is consistently one of the biggest challenges in nutritional research. The problem is rarely a shortage of eligible people — it is a gap between who is eligible and who actually consents and shows up.
The gap between a well-designed and a poorly designed observational study is not always obvious from the outside — but only one produces evidence robust enough to support decisions. Here are five mistakes that separate the two.
A genuinely remote-first CRO is built differently from one that has simply added distributed working on top of existing structures. Here's what that difference looks like in practice — and why it matters for study quality.
Over-regulating low-risk research drives up cost without improving science. Understanding when non-CTIMP governance applies — and what it enables — is one of the most valuable things a sponsor can do before a study begins.
Bloated, logistics-intensive CROs drive up costs and complexity. Here's how a lean, data-first alternative delivers better evidence for clinical and real-world studies.
Connected wearables transform everyday life into rich, real-world data that can unlock deeper, more continuous evidence about how treatments work outside the clinic.
No posts in this category yet.
