Talk:Contract research organization

message: The article references on 1,100 CROs, but I know there are many times that number. My company deals with the preclinical CRO market and have over 6,000 cataloged in our system (6582 as of writing to be exact). Take a look through our various pages upon pages of them: www[dot]assaydepot[dot]com/providers (note: link obfusticated to not send any spiders or other traffic there).
Gremlyn1 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of CROs

message: The first sentence under Regulatory Aspects starts, "Specifically pertaining to CROs providing clinical-trials services, the ICH-GCP (E6 1.20)..." Anyone who doesn't know what a CRO is surely will not know what "the CIH-GCP (E6 1.20) is. Whoever wrote that, please describe what it is before you introduce it.
99.33.85.12 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Rid of the Jargon

message: Is there a difference between these two definitions of CRO?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.61.41 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical Research Organization or Contract Research Organization 

message: This is the text from Contract Research Organization, which can be merged with this article.Marasmusine 11:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and put this text in to replace the old introduction paragraph anyway. Marasmusine 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger from Contract Research Organization

message: It seems to me absurd to distinguish between these as I believe most CROs now utilized much digital infrastructure in their operations. Is there any evidence that this is anything more than marketing?
--Xris0 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there aren't any good sources added to defend this distinction I'm going to delete this section because it doesn't make sense to me. --Xris0 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: eCRO vs. CRO

message: The CROlike it is being modified by CROs to jockey their positions/appearance... probably should be watched to make sure it reflects an unbiased presentation. I removed eCRO tags per the above section. I combined a separate "Global CRO" list because I noticed that some of the CROs in the other sections were global and this distinction should probably only be made if all the organizations are put in the proper place, rather than one company putting itself in the separate section and leaving the others out (ie. what someone appeared to have done, ahem). I also changed link titles that were all caps and removed extraneous information (ie. stock ticker information). Trying to keep everything neutral...--Xris0 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not following NPOV edit guidelines. You are adding 3 links for yourself on the top, and putting in distinguishing descriptive text. This isn't rocket science; just add a single simple link like all the others or stop wasting editors' time by editing this page. --Xris0 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CRO list

message: Well Wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of links for one and secondly that list is far from comprehensive.  There are several, including the one that I work for, that are larger, have more international coverage in the media and are more notable than several in that list.  If the CRO is important it should have its own article.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice the one I work for is in the list but still the point still stands as marked by the clean-up tag.  If the company is important it should have its own article.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up of lists

message: Made a proposed significant update to the article, as citations and references were completely absent, and the introductory section was relatively incorrect.  Edits are encouraged, references to publicly-available external articles should be accurate.
Azupnick (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not proposed if you made the edits in the mainspace. :) You might want to look at WP:MOS to see Wikipedia's writing style and WP:RS for sourcing info. There are editors who can help with technical and trade sourcing as well. Flowanda | Talk 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Update and Addition of References 

message: This is a valid encyclopedic article within the Pharmaceutical industry category unless the information is covered in a more appropriate article (and if so, where?). It is by no means spam. Company-specific information that constituted advertising has already been removed.  The article needs improved structure to bring it up to encyclopedia standards. The article should be expanded to address: (a) the criticality to pharmaceutical development as pharma companies can no longer afford to maintain their own large organisations, (2) the different types of CROs (clinical, central labs etc), (3) the different models of CRO outsourcing (full service vs functional).  TomorrowsDream (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion 

message: Damien, do you know what you are talking about?  I don't see how a report from IMS Health about the future growth of the CRO market constitutes a "big press release" or advertising.  Instead of just deleting half the article, perhaps you could spend some time improving it or even providing some justification for excessive editing?  TomorrowsDream (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Big press release?

message: So I did a pubmed search, "preclinical CRO" and the overwhelming majority of hits i got back were from a journal Critical Reviews in Oncology. this, i think, supports the use of the term "CRO" as mainly a clinical phenomenon. I've reverted the recent edits, but as noted above I would be interested in hearing other perspectives; what WP:RS-compliant literature talks about preclinical CROs in addition to clinical CROs? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  clinical/preclinical 

message: So I made a request for semi-protection (because i wasnt aware of the pending changes option) and the article has been placed on pending changes protection, because of the incessant targeting of the article by spammers, typically coming from ip addresses or single-use unconfirmed accounts. I'm hoping that this will reduce the vandalism-policing burden, as these changes will not go live until accepted by a confirmed user. Admittedly, this was a much worse problem when there was a separate "List of contract research organizations" page, but it's still a pain.
autoconfirmed users' changes will go live immediately. this is just to provide oversight of edits from ip editors and non-confirmed users. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks! Gremlyn1 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pending changes protection 

message: Please consider narrowing the title to pharmaceutical subject, e.g. Contract research organisation (Pharmacology). Contract research is in fact performed in many other subject areas. LHOON (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrower title ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Contract research organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100831042451/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/trade-development/economic-development/13007133-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/trade-development/economic-development/13007133-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Contract research organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101218005619/http://globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rbcr0015m.pdf to http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rbcr0015m.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Contract research organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703015342/http://www.acrohealth.org/cro-market1.html to http://www.acrohealth.org/cro-market1.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allbusiness.com/trade-development/economic-development/13007133-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A book titled A Magnificient Text Book Of Pharmacovigillance (sic) by Zakir Hussaain, published on 28 Dec 2019 by Orangebooks contains several paragraphs of text lifted verbatim from the lede of this article. See p.41 of this book where CRO is defined: Google book link. This book does not cite Wikipedia (or any other publication) as a source. Its publication date of 28 December 2019 is more recent than the article, suggesting it was copied from the article rather than the other way around. Additional proof of this Wikipedia plagiarism is the fact that a "[4]" citation reference from the Wikipedia article is retained in the book text, when this book does not even use that format for its bibliographic references, or even provide any other such references elsewhere in its text.
Given this, A Magnificient Text Book Of Pharmacovigillance should not be used as a citation for this article. Doing so would create a circular reference. I discovered this situation by Googling some text in the lede that was flagged 'Citation needed', attempting to hunt down a reasonable source for that information. A Magnificent Text Book... is not a good source!
SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: A Magnificent Text Book of Pharmacovigillance

message: Section “Top CROs by annual revenue” is outdated. Rank list should be updated to reflect revenue from 2022. 2600:1012:B17F:40A7:8160:2881:C5C2:C928 (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section “Top CROs by annual revenue” Outdated 

message: There are CROs such as MRIGlobal and Battelle which manage DOE funded sites for sustainable energy research. 2600:100E:B061:20DB:51F0:673D:7770:DBF1 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Scope of Wiki