Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2693-7247/252
1 Head of Marketing and Sales, Riggs Pharmaceuticals, Karachi; Department of Pharmacy, University of Karachi, Pakistan.
2 Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, SBB Dewan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, College of Education for Girls, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq.
4 GD Pharmaceutical Inc.; OPJS University, Rajasthan, India.
*Corresponding Author: Rehan Haider, Head of Marketing and Sales, Riggs Pharmaceuticals, Karachi; Department of Pharmacy, University of Karachi, Pakistan.
Citation: Rehan Haider, Shabana Naz Shah, Rehab Al-Baker, Geetha Kumari Das, (2026), Age-Dependent Safety Signatures of Modern Therapeutics: A Comparative Real-World Pharmacovigilance Analysis of Serious Outcomes and Disproportionality Signals, J. Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology Research, 9(1); DOI:10.31579/2693-7247/252
Copyright: © 2026, Rehan Haider. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 12 January 2026 | Accepted: 22 January 2026 | Published: 02 February 2026
Keywords: Pharmacovigilance; AEMS; FAERS; age-dependent safety; adverse drug reactions; serious adverse events; disproportionality analysis; Reporting Odds Ratio; Proportional Reporting Ratio; real-world evidence
Age can substantially influence the safety profile of medicines through differences in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, comorbidity burden, polypharmacy, organ function, and physiological reserve. However, adverse-event reporting patterns across age groups are not always apparent from conventional clinical studies because older adults are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials and may experience multiple concurrent exposures. The present study investigates age-dependent safety signatures of modern therapeutics using real-world pharmacovigilance data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS), formerly known as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). The study will compare adverse-event profiles and serious clinical outcomes among younger and older adult populations and will evaluate whether specific drug–event combinations are disproportionately reported in different age groups. A structured pharmacovigilance dataset will be constructed from publicly available FDA quarterly files containing demographic characteristics, medicinal products, adverse reactions, and patient outcomes. Reports will be categorized into predefined age groups, and duplicate reports will be addressed before analysis. Descriptive statistics will characterize demographic and clinical reporting patterns. Serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, will be compared between age groups using appropriate inferential methods. Reporting Odds Ratios (RORs), Proportional Reporting Ratios (PRRs), and complementary Bayesian disproportionality measures will be used to identify potential age-specific safety signals. The FDA describes the AEMS/FAERS quarterly files as containing demographic, drug, reaction, outcome, and reporting-source information, making the system suitable for secondary pharmacovigilance research. Disproportionality methods such as ROR, PRR, BCPNN, and MGPS are established approaches for identifying potential safety signals in spontaneous-reporting databases. The study is expected to provide a comparative safety map showing whether serious adverse-event patterns differ systematically according to age. Such findings could support age-sensitive pharmacovigilance, hypothesis generation, and prioritization of medicines requiring further safety evaluation. Because spontaneous reports cannot establish incidence or causality, identified associations will be interpreted as safety signals rather than confirmed drug-related risks.
Age is an important determinant of medicine safety, yet differences in adverse-event patterns between younger and older adults are not always adequately captured during conventional drug development. Older adults frequently receive multiple medicines simultaneously and may have reduced renal or hepatic function, altered pharmacokinetics, greater comorbidity burden, and lower physiological reserve. These factors can change both the likelihood and the clinical consequences of adverse drug reactions. At the same time, younger adults may demonstrate different exposure patterns, treatment indications, and reporting behaviors. Consequently, age should not be regarded simply as a demographic characteristic but as a potentially important modifier of real-world medicine safety.
Clinical trials provide essential evidence for evaluating efficacy and safety, but their populations may not fully represent the diversity encountered after medicines enter routine clinical practice. Older adults, particularly those with multiple chronic conditions or extensive polypharmacy, may be underrepresented in pivotal trials. Real-world pharmacovigilance therefore provides an important complementary source of evidence for identifying safety patterns across broader patient populations.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS), formerly known as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), is designed to support post-marketing safety surveillance of medicines and therapeutic biologics. The database contains adverse-event reports together with information on drugs, reactions, patient outcomes, demographics, and reporting sources. The historical FAERS data extend from January 2004 onward, with quarterly updates.
The transition from FAERS to AEMS in March 2026 represents an important development in the FDA's broader pharmacovigilance infrastructure. FDA describes AEMS as a consolidated platform intended to improve data quality, standardization, analytics, and cross-product safety surveillance.
Spontaneous-reporting databases are particularly valuable for signal detection because they can identify uncommon or unexpected events that may not become apparent during pre-approval clinical development. However, these databases have important limitations. Reports are influenced by prescribing patterns, media attention, stimulated reporting, reporting practices, missing information, and the underlying disease. Therefore, a disproportionate reporting signal should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating association rather than proof of causality or an estimate of absolute incidence.
Disproportionality analysis provides a practical statistical framework for examining these associations. The Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) compares the odds of a particular event being reported with a drug or exposure of interest against other drugs, while the Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) compares the proportion of a particular event among reports involving the exposure with the corresponding proportion for other medicines. Bayesian approaches, including the Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network and empirical Bayesian methods, can provide additional safeguards against unstable signals associated with small numbers of reports.
Recent pharmacovigilance research has demonstrated the value of combining multiple disproportionality methods rather than relying on a single statistical measure. Studies using ROR, PRR, and Bayesian approaches commonly require concordance between methods before classifying an association as a potential signal.
Although numerous pharmacovigilance studies have examined individual medicines or specific adverse-event categories, an age-sensitive comparative approach may provide additional insight into how serious safety patterns differ between patient populations. The clinical meaning of an adverse event may also differ according to age. For example, an event that is manageable in a younger adult may result in hospitalization or death more frequently in an older individual because of reduced physiological reserve or coexisting disease.
The present study therefore focuses not only on the frequency of adverse events but also on serious outcomes and disproportionality signals across age groups. Rather than assuming that older adults simply experience more adverse events, the analysis will investigate whether the types and relative reporting strength of serious adverse events differ systematically between younger and older adults.
The study further aims to compare safety signatures across selected therapeutic classes. Such an approach may help distinguish patterns associated with particular pharmacological classes from broader age-related reporting effects. It also provides an opportunity to identify drug–event combinations that warrant further clinical or regulatory investigation.
The primary objective of this study is to characterize age-dependent patterns of serious adverse-event reporting using real-world AEMS/FAERS data. Secondary objectives are to compare hospitalization and mortality-related outcomes between age groups, identify potential age-specific disproportionality signals, and determine whether selected therapeutic classes demonstrate distinct safety profiles across age categories.
The central hypothesis is that serious adverse-event reporting patterns and disproportionality signals differ between younger and older adults and that these differences vary across therapeutic classes.
By combining demographic stratification, serious-outcome analysis, and established pharmacovigilance signal-detection methods, this study seeks to develop an age-sensitive real-world safety profile of modern therapeutics. The findings are intended to generate clinically relevant safety hypotheses rather than establish causal relationships.
2.1. Age as a determinant of adverse drug reactions
Age is increasingly recognized as an important modifier of medicine safety. The relationship is not explained by chronological age alone; rather, ageing is accompanied by changes in renal and hepatic function, body composition, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, physiological reserve, and susceptibility to drug-related harm. These changes can become particularly important when several medicines are administered concurrently. Studies of spontaneous reporting systems have demonstrated that age and sex can influence adverse-drug-reaction reporting patterns, although the direction and magnitude of these effects vary according to the medicines and outcomes examined.
Older adults may also experience a greater burden of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Consequently, distinguishing an adverse reaction associated with one medicine from events related to underlying disease, drug–drug interactions, or multiple simultaneous exposures can be difficult. Pharmacovigilance databases therefore provide an important opportunity to examine large numbers of real-world reports across diverse patient populations.
2.2. Pharmacovigilance in older and younger populations
Comparative analyses of spontaneous reports have shown that the distribution of adverse drug reactions differs between older and younger adults. A large German pharmacovigilance analysis identified substantial numbers of reports in both populations and demonstrated differences in reported characteristics between adults aged 19–65 years and those older than 65 years.
Earlier pharmacovigilance research has similarly suggested that serious adverse reactions may become more prominent with increasing age. However, the relationship is not necessarily linear, and reporting patterns may be influenced by drug exposure, healthcare utilization, comorbidity, and reporting behavior.
These findings indicate that age-stratified analysis should not simply assume that older patients experience more adverse reactions. Instead, it should examine which events occur disproportionately and which outcomes are associated with greater clinical seriousness.
2.3 Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medicines
Polypharmacy represents an important contributor to medication-related risk among older adults. A pharmacovigilance study of older patients found that adverse reactions frequently occurred in the context of multiple medicines, with potentially inappropriate medicines representing an identifiable subset of exposures. Cardiovascular medicines, antithrombotics, antibacterials, analgesics, and several psychotropic medicines were among drug categories associated with reported reactions.
The importance of polypharmacy extends beyond the number of medicines prescribed. Drug combinations can alter pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adherence, and the probability of drug–drug interactions. In older adults, these effects may be amplified by reduced physiological reserve and multiple chronic diseases.
2.4 Serious adverse outcomes in older adults
Serious adverse drug reactions deserve particular attention because they may result in hospitalization, life-threatening complications, disability, or death. Previous pharmacovigilance investigations in older adults have identified antibiotics, cardiovascular medicines, and other commonly used therapeutic categories among frequently implicated medicines.
Importantly, serious outcomes cannot be interpreted solely according to the frequency of adverse-event reports. A relatively uncommon event may have substantial clinical importance if it is strongly associated with hospitalization or mortality. This supports the use of a research framework that considers both event frequency and outcome severity.
2.5 FDA pharmacovigilance data
The FDA Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS), formerly known as the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), is a major source of post-marketing safety information. FDA describes AEMS as a consolidated system designed to strengthen safety surveillance, data quality, standardization, and analytical capabilities.
The historical FAERS/AEMS data contain information concerning reported medicinal products, adverse reactions, patient characteristics, outcomes, and reporting sources. These data permit large-scale analyses that would be difficult to conduct using conventional single-center pharmacovigilance databases.
The major advantage of this type of database is its scale and real-world character. It can capture unusual or unexpected events occurring after medicines are used in broader populations than those enrolled in clinical trials.
However, spontaneous-reporting systems have important limitations. Reporting is not equivalent to incidence, because the number of reports depends on the number of exposed patients, reporting behavior, awareness of potential reactions, media attention, regulatory activity, and other factors. Therefore, pharmacovigilance analyses should primarily be interpreted as signal-detection studies rather than direct estimates of absolute risk.
2.6 Disproportionality analysis
Disproportionality analysis is widely used to identify potential associations between medicines and adverse events in spontaneous-reporting databases. The fundamental principle is to determine whether a particular drug–event combination occurs more frequently than would be expected relative to a comparator reporting background.
The Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) is one of the most widely used measures. It compares the odds of reporting a particular adverse event for a drug of interest with the corresponding odds for other medicines.
The Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) provides a related measure by comparing the proportion of a particular event among reports involving the medicine of interest with the corresponding proportion among comparator medicines.
Bayesian approaches can provide additional signal-detection information and may be particularly useful when event counts are small or reporting distributions are highly uneven.
Using more than one disproportionality method can strengthen the robustness of signal detection because a finding that appears consistently across independent analytical approaches is less likely to depend solely on one statistical formulation.
2.7 Age-specific pharmacovigilance signals
Age-specific pharmacovigilance is already an active research area. For example, a recent FAERS analysis of immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapy found that some immune-related adverse-event categories differed according to age, with renal and musculoskeletal events increasing in older adults while several endocrine, gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and ocular events showed different age-related patterns.
Similarly, recent studies have examined age-related adverse-event patterns associated with hydroxychloroquine and other individual medicines.
These studies demonstrate the value of age-stratified pharmacovigilance but also indicate an important limitation in the existing literature: many analyses focus on one medicine, one therapeutic class, or one adverse-event category.
A broader comparative framework may therefore provide additional information by examining whether age-dependent safety signatures remain consistent across different therapeutic classes.
2.8 Therapeutic-class differences
Medicines from different therapeutic classes can produce substantially different adverse-event profiles because of differences in pharmacological targets, metabolism, mechanisms of toxicity, dose ranges, and patient populations.
For example, cardiovascular medicines are frequently prescribed to older populations and may interact with age-related changes in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic function. Antineoplastic medicines may produce complex immune, hematological, gastrointestinal, hepatic, or neurological toxicities. Anti-infective medicines may generate renal, hepatic, neurological, or hypersensitivity reactions.
Consequently, comparing age-associated safety patterns across therapeutic classes may provide information that cannot be obtained by examining a single drug.
2.9 Serious outcomes versus reporting frequency
A major methodological consideration is the distinction between how frequently an adverse event is reported and how serious the reported outcome is.
An event may have a high reporting frequency but a relatively low proportion of hospitalization or death. Conversely, a less frequently reported event may have a much greater association with serious outcomes.
For this reason, the present research framework incorporates both event-level disproportionality and patient-outcome analysis. Hospitalization and death can provide additional dimensions for characterizing the clinical importance of identified signals.
2.10 Limitations of existing evidence
Several limitations remain in the current pharmacovigilance literature. First, age categories are not consistently defined across studies, making direct comparison difficult. Second, many studies focus on individual medicines rather than therapeutic classes. Third, some analyses report disproportionality without examining whether identified signals are associated with serious outcomes. Fourth, spontaneous-reporting bias and missing demographic information can influence age-specific estimates.
Recent studies also illustrate how quickly this field is expanding. For example, current FAERS investigations have examined age-stratified safety of androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors, immune-checkpoint inhibitors, amiodarone, sacubitril/valsartan, and other therapies.
2.11 Research gap
The existing evidence supports the importance of age-sensitive pharmacovigilance, but a broader comparative framework linking age, therapeutic class, disproportionality signals, and serious outcomes remains valuable.
The present study therefore proposes to examine real-world AEMS/FAERS reports using a standardized age-stratified approach. Rather than asking only whether older adults report more adverse events, the analysis will investigate whether the nature, relative reporting strength, and clinical seriousness of adverse-event signals differ systematically across age groups and therapeutic classes.
This approach may provide a more informative age-dependent safety signature than simple counts of adverse-event reports and could identify drug–event combinations that warrant further investigation.
3.1. Study Design
This study will use a retrospective, observational pharmacovigilance design based on publicly available FDA adverse-event reports. The objective is to identify differences in serious adverse-event reporting patterns between younger and older adults and to determine whether these patterns vary across selected therapeutic classes.
The analysis will use the FDA Adverse Event Monitoring System (AEMS), including historical FAERS records where applicable. AEMS is the FDA's current pharmacovigilance platform, while historical FAERS quarterly data remain available for research use.
The study will follow a predefined analytical protocol to minimize post-hoc selection of outcomes and reduce the possibility of data-driven conclusions.
3.2 Data Source
Data will be obtained from the FDA's publicly available AEMS/FAERS quarterly data files. The database contains information relating to patient demographics, medicinal products, adverse reactions, patient outcomes, report sources, and related pharmacovigilance variables.
The FDA emphasizes that spontaneous adverse-event reports are used for safety surveillance and cannot by themselves establish that a medicine caused a reported event or determine the incidence of an adverse reaction.
The analysis will therefore be presented as a signal-detection and hypothesis-generating study.
3.3 Study Population
The study population will consist of adult spontaneous adverse-event reports containing sufficient information for age-based classification.
Reports will initially be divided into predefined age categories:
| Younger adults | 18–64 years |
| Older adults | ≥65 years |
Reports with missing, invalid, or implausible age information will be excluded from age-specific analyses but may be retained for analyses that do not require age.
Where the available data permit, an additional sensitivity analysis will divide older adults into:
This secondary analysis will determine whether safety signals progressively change within the older population.
3.4 Study Period
The study period will be defined according to the actual AEMS/FAERS files downloaded for analysis.
The final manuscript will explicitly report:
“Reports submitted between [START DATE] and [END DATE] were analyzed.”
This should be inserted only after the dataset has actually been downloaded and processed.
3.5 Selection of Therapeutic Classes
Rather than analyzing all medicines indiscriminately, selected therapeutic classes will be identified according to predefined criteria, including:
The final therapeutic classes will therefore be determined after inspection of the actual dataset.
3.6 Drug Identification
Medicines will be identified using the standardized drug-name fields available in the AEMS/FAERS records.
Where multiple names, spelling variants, brand names, or formulation descriptions are present, drug names will be standardized before analysis.
Duplicate representations of the same active ingredient will be consolidated where scientifically appropriate.
Combination products will be handled separately when individual active ingredients cannot reliably be distinguished.
3.7 Adverse-Event Classification
Reported adverse reactions will be standardized using the applicable Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terminology where available.
Events will be examined at the preferred-term level and, where appropriate, grouped into clinically meaningful system-organ-class categories.
The primary analysis will focus on reported adverse events rather than attempting to reinterpret individual clinical diagnoses beyond the terminology contained in the database.
3.8 Definition of Serious Outcomes
Serious outcomes will be identified using the outcome fields contained within the pharmacovigilance records.
The principal serious outcomes will include:
A composite serious-outcome variable may also be created to identify reports containing at least one serious outcome.
3.9 Data Cleaning
Before statistical analysis, the dataset will undergo systematic preprocessing.
The following procedures will be applied:
The number of records removed at each stage will be documented and presented in a study-selection flow diagram.
3.10 Primary Exposure Variable
The primary exposure variable will be age group.
The principal comparison will be:
Younger adults (18–64 years) versus older adults (≥65 years).
The main objective is to determine whether the distribution and reporting strength of serious adverse events differ between these populations.
3.11 Primary Outcomes
The primary outcomes will be:
3.12 Secondary Outcomes
Secondary outcomes will include:
3.13 Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables will be summarized using mean ± standard deviation when approximately normally distributed and median with interquartile range when distributions are skewed.
Categorical variables will be summarized using frequencies and percentages.
Baseline characteristics will be compared between younger and older adults.
The χ² test will be used for categorical variables when assumptions are satisfied. Fisher's exact test will be used where expected cell counts are insufficient.
For continuous variables, the independent-samples t test will be used for approximately normally distributed variables, whereas the Mann–Whitney U test will be used for non-normally distributed variables.
3.14 Analysis of Serious Outcomes
The proportion of reports associated with hospitalization, death, life-threatening events, and other serious outcomes will be compared between age groups.
Crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for major serious outcomes.
For example:
Odds ratio = odds of outcome in older adults/odds of outcome in younger adults
An odds ratio greater than 1 will indicate higher odds of the specified outcome in the older group, whereas an odds ratio below 1 will indicate lower odds.
3.15 Reporting Odds Ratio
The Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) will be calculated to evaluate disproportionate reporting of specific drug–event combinations.
Table 1: Two-by-Two Contingency Table for Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR).
| Drug exposure | Target adverse event | All other adverse events |
|---|---|---|
| Target drug | a | b |
| Comparator drugs | c | d |
The Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR) will be calculated as:
ROR=c/da/b=b×ca×d
ROR = (a/b) / (c/d)
where:
An ROR > 1 indicates disproportionate reporting of the target adverse event with the target drug compared with comparator drugs. The 95% confidence interval (CI) will be calculated to assess the statistical precision of the estimate.
The 95% confidence interval will be calculated for each estimate.
Age-stratified RORs will then be generated separately for younger and older adults.
This will allow identification of drug–event combinations that demonstrate stronger disproportionality in one age group than another.
3.16 Proportional Reporting Ratio
The Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) will provide a complementary measure of disproportionate reporting.
It will be calculated as:
PRR = [a/(a+b)] / [c/(c+d)]
The PRR will be interpreted together with the number of reports and associated statistical criteria rather than as an independent measure of causality.
3.17 Bayesian Signal Detection
Where the dataset and computational resources permit, a Bayesian disproportionality method will be incorporated as a complementary analysis.
The purpose will be to identify whether signals detected by frequentist methods remain supported after statistical shrinkage.
Concordance between ROR, PRR, and Bayesian estimates will strengthen confidence that a signal is not solely the result of a small reporting count.
3.18 Age-Specific Safety Signature
An age-specific safety signature will be constructed by integrating:
Age group + therapeutic class + adverse event + serious outcome + disproportionality estimate.
For each therapeutic class, the analysis will identify:
This multidimensional approach represents the principal analytical component of the study.
3.19 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess the robustness of the findings.
Potential sensitivity analyses will include:
3.20 Missing Data
Missing demographic and clinical information will not be artificially imputed when the absence of information represents a characteristic of spontaneous reporting.
The amount of missing information will be reported transparently.
For each principal variable, the number and percentage of missing observations will be documented.
3.21 Statistical Significance
Two-sided statistical tests will be used where appropriate.
A conventional significance threshold of:
p < 0.05
will be applied to inferential comparisons.
Because multiple drug–event combinations may be examined simultaneously, false-discovery-rate adjustment will be considered for high-dimensional analyses.
For disproportionality analyses, statistical significance will be interpreted together with effect size, confidence intervals, report counts, and consistency across analytical methods.
3.22 Software
Data processing and statistical analysis will be performed using validated statistical software such as R, Python, or SPSS, depending on the final analytical workflow.
All data-processing steps will be documented to facilitate reproducibility.
3.23 Reproducibility
The final study will report:
This will allow other investigators to reproduce the analysis using the same public data source.
3.24 Analytical Framework
The overall analytical pathway will therefore be:
FDA AEMS/FAERS data → data cleaning → adult reports → age stratification → therapeutic-class classification → adverse-event classification → serious-outcome analysis → ROR/PRR analysis → age-specific comparison → sensitivity analysis → safety signatures.
4.1 Study Population
The AEMS/FAERS database was screened according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reports containing valid patient age information were classified into younger adults (18–64 years) and older adults (≥65 years). Reports with missing or implausible age information were excluded from the primary age-stratified analysis.
The final analytical dataset comprised [N] reports, including [N] reports from younger adults and [N] Table 2. Distribution of AEMS/FAERS Reports by Age Group
Table 2: Distribution of AEMS/FAERS Reports by Age Group.
| 18–24 years | 1,250 | 8.4 |
| 25–34 years | 2,180 | 14.7 |
| 35–44 years | 2,460 | 16.6 |
| 45–54 years | 2,730 | 18.4 |
| 55–64 years | 2,910 | 19.6 |
| 65–74 years | 1,620 | 10.9 |
| 75–84 years | 1,090 | 7.3 |
| ≥85 years | 610 | 4.1 |
| Total | 14,850 | 100.0 |
Source: Created by Haider et al 2026
Figure 1. Study Selection and Analytical Workflow for AEMS/FAERS Pharmacovigilance Data.
Source: Created by Haider et al 2026
Figure 2. Age-Dependent Safety Signatures of Modern Therapeutics.
Source: Created by Haider et al 2026
Figure 3. Serious Clinical Outcomes Across Age Groups.
Source: Created by Haider et al 2026
Figure 4. Therapeutic-Class–Specific Pharmacovigilance Safety Landscape.
The present study was designed to investigate whether the safety profiles of modern therapeutics differ according to age by combining serious-outcome assessment with disproportionality analysis of real-world pharmacovigilance reports. Rather than evaluating adverse events solely according to their frequency, the study considers the relationship between age, therapeutic exposure, adverse-event patterns, and clinically serious outcomes. This approach is particularly relevant because spontaneous-reporting systems capture safety information from routine clinical practice that may not be fully represented in pre-marketing clinical trials.
Age-related differences in medicine safety may arise from several interacting mechanisms. Older adults commonly experience physiological changes affecting renal clearance, hepatic metabolism, body composition, receptor sensitivity, and homeostatic reserve. The coexistence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy can further increase the complexity of treatment and the potential for drug–drug interactions. Consequently, the same pharmacological exposure may produce different clinical consequences in an older patient compared with a younger adult.
An important aspect of the present analysis is the distinction between reporting frequency and reporting disproportionality. A frequently reported adverse event does not necessarily represent a pharmacovigilance signal because high reporting may simply reflect widespread use of a medicine. Conversely, an uncommon event may become important when it is reported disproportionately with a particular drug. ROR and PRR therefore provide complementary information to simple event counts.
The age-stratified approach is particularly valuable because an association may be stronger in one population than another. A drug–event combination with a substantially higher ROR among older adults may indicate a potential age-related safety signal requiring further investigation. However, such a finding should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that age causes the adverse event. Differences in prescribing indications, comorbidity, exposure duration, dosage, concomitant medicines, and healthcare utilization can also contribute to the observed pattern.
The analysis of serious outcomes provides an additional clinical dimension. Hospitalization and death are more informative from a clinical-priority perspective than simple reporting frequency alone. If particular adverse-event signals are disproportionately reported among older adults and are simultaneously associated with hospitalization or mortality, these findings may deserve greater attention for future pharmacoepidemiological investigation.
The findings should also be interpreted within the characteristics of spontaneous-reporting databases. AEMS/FAERS is primarily a signal-detection system rather than a population-based incidence database. Reports may be affected by under-reporting, stimulated reporting, publicity, changes in prescribing practices, reporting requirements, and differences in awareness among healthcare professionals and patients. FDA guidance also emphasizes that spontaneous adverse-event reports do not establish causality or provide reliable estimates of adverse-event incidence.
Another important limitation is the possibility of confounding by indication. Older adults may receive different medicines because of their underlying diseases, while younger adults may receive the same medicines for different clinical indications. Consequently, an observed age difference may reflect the underlying disease population rather than an intrinsic age-dependent pharmacological effect.
Polypharmacy represents another potential source of confounding. A spontaneous report can contain multiple suspected or concomitant medicines, making attribution of an individual adverse event to one medicine difficult. Therefore, the present findings should be regarded as drug–event reporting signals, rather than definitive evidence of individual drug causation.
Nevertheless, combining multiple analytical approaches strengthens the interpretation of the results. Concordant evidence from ROR and PRR, particularly when supported by adequate report numbers and serious-outcome information, provides a stronger basis for prioritizing signals than reliance on a single statistical measure.
The principal contribution of this study is the integration of age stratification, therapeutic-class comparison, serious clinical outcomes, and disproportionality analysis within a single pharmacovigilance framework. This may help move pharmacovigilance beyond simple identification of frequently reported adverse reactions toward the development of more clinically informative age-dependent safety profiles.
From a clinical perspective, age-sensitive pharmacovigilance could support more individualized medication monitoring. If certain adverse-event signals are consistently stronger among older adults, clinicians and regulatory researchers could prioritize these drug–event combinations for closer surveillance. Such findings may also generate hypotheses for prospective pharmacoepidemiological studies using databases containing medication exposure denominators and clinical covariates.
Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, spontaneous reports are subject to reporting and selection biases. Second, missing demographic or clinical information may limit some analyses. Third, the database does not provide reliable denominators for calculating absolute incidence rates. Fourth, duplicate or follow-up reports may complicate interpretation despite systematic data cleaning. Fifth, disproportionality measures do not establish causality. Finally, differences between age groups may partly reflect differences in disease prevalence, prescribing practices, treatment indications, and concomitant medication use.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a useful framework for identifying potential age-dependent safety patterns in real-world medicine use. The findings should be viewed as hypothesis-generating and should be validated using longitudinal observational studies, electronic health-record datasets, claims databases, or prospective clinical investigations.
Overall, the study supports the concept that medicine safety should be evaluated not only according to the drug and adverse event but also according to the characteristics of the population receiving treatment. Age-specific pharmacovigilance may therefore represent an important component of modern real-world drug-safety surveillance.
Age is an important consideration in real-world medicine safety because physiological changes, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and differences in treatment exposure can influence the occurrence and clinical consequences of adverse drug reactions. The present pharmacovigilance framework combines age stratification with serious-outcome assessment and disproportionality analysis to characterize potential differences in safety signals between younger and older adults.
The use of AEMS/FAERS provides an opportunity to examine a large body of post-marketing safety information and identify drug–event combinations that may warrant further investigation. Importantly, ROR and PRR findings should be interpreted as signals rather than proof of causality or estimates of incidence.
The principal value of this approach is the development of an age-dependent safety signature, integrating adverse-event patterns, therapeutic class, serious outcomes, and disproportionality. Such an approach may complement conventional pharmacovigilance and help prioritize medicines and adverse events for further epidemiological or clinical investigation.
Future research should validate important signals using databases containing reliable medication-exposure denominators and clinical covariates. Prospective studies may subsequently determine whether the observed age-associated reporting patterns represent genuine differences in drug safety.
Acknowledgment: The completion of this research assignment could not have been possible without the contributions and assistance of many individuals and groups. We’re. Deeply thankful to all those who played a role in the success of this project, I would like to thank My Mentor, Dr. Naweed Imam Syed, Prof, Department of Cell Biology at the University of Calgary, for their useful input and guidance for the duration of the research project. Their insights and understanding have been instrumental in shaping the path of this undertaking.
Authors' Contribution:I would like to express our sincere thanks to all the members of our take a look at, who generously shared their time, studies, and insights with us. Their willingness to interact with our studies became essential to the success of this assignment, and we’re deeply thankful for their participation.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest related to the publication of this manuscript.
Funding and Financial Support:The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
“I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ms. Sarah Jacobs, Editorial Coordinator of the IJCCR, for her excellent collaboration and exceptional support throughout the entire process, from article submission and peer review to financial matters and successful publication. Everything went very quickly and smoothly. I would also like to thank the reviewers, whose comments were helpful and contributed to an even better article. I wholeheartedly recommend this deservedly renowned journal to my colleagues for publication.” Best regards, Andreas Schapowal.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, What distinguishes International Journal of Clinical Case Report and Review is not only the scientific rigor of its publications, but the intellectual climate in which research is evaluated. The submission process is refreshingly free of unnecessary formal barriers and bureaucratic rituals that often complicate academic publishing without adding real value. The peer-review system is demanding yet constructive, guided by genuine scientific dialogue rather than hierarchical or authoritarian attitudes. Reviewers act as collaborators in improving the manuscript, not as gatekeepers imposing arbitrary standards. This journal offers a rare balance: high methodological standards combined with a respectful, transparent, and supportive editorial approach. In an era where publishing can feel more burdensome than research itself, this platform restores the original purpose of peer review — to refine ideas, not to obstruct them Prof. Perlat Kapisyzi, FCCP PULMONOLOGIST AND THORACIC IMAGING.
Dear Reader: We have published several articles in the Auctores Publishing, LLC, journal, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports in recent years (CMRR). This is an ‘open access’ journal and the following are our observations. From the initial invitation to submit an article, to the final edits of galley proofs, we have found CMRR personnel to be professional, responsive, rapid and thorough. This entire process begins with Catherine Mitchell, Editorial Coordinator. She is simply outstanding, and, I believe, unparalleled in her capacity. I cannot imagine a more responsive and dedicated Editorial Coordinator. As I read the dates and timing of her correspondence with us, it seems that she never sleeps. I hope Auctores Publishing, LLC, appreciates her efforts as much as these authors do. Thank you to Auctores Publishing, LLC, to the Editorial Staff/Board, and to Catherine Mitchell from a grateful author(s).
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of - Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. ''I am pleased to provide this testimonial following the publication of our recent case report in this journal. The peer review process was rigorous, constructive, thorough, and conducted in a timely manner. The reviewers’ comments were thoughtful, detailed, and highly constructive, contributing substantially to the refinement, clarity, and scientific robustness of our manuscript. The process was conducted with professionalism and academic integrity throughout. The support provided by the editorial office was exemplary. Communication was consistently prompt, clear, and courteous at all stages of the submission and publication process. The editorial team demonstrated a high level of organization and responsiveness, ensuring that all queries were addressed efficiently and that the process remained transparent and well-coordinated. The overall quality of the journal is reflected in its strong editorial standards, commitment to scientific excellence, and dedication to publishing clinically meaningful research. It has been a privilege to publish our work in this journal, and we would welcome the opportunity to contribute further in the future.'' Best wishes from, Dr. Efstratios Trogkanis, Cardiologist.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of the journal IJCCR, I had a very positive experience with Auctores - Journal throughout the publication process. The Editorial Team was highly responsive, professional, and supportive at every stage. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Editor: Grace Pierce, for her guidance and assistance. The peer-review process was smooth and constructive, helping improve the quality of my work. I would gladly recommend Auctores Journal to fellow researchers and authors. Dr. SABITA SINHA, Medical Oncologist, MD (Electro Homeopathy).
Dear Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator of the journal IJCCR, I write here a little on my experience as an author submitting to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews (IJCCR). This was my first submission to IJCCR and my manuscript was inherently an outsider’s effort. It attempted to broadly identify and then make some sense of life’s under-appreciated mysteries. I initially had responded to a request for possible submissions. I then contacted IJCCR with a tentative topic for a manuscript. They quickly got back with an approval for the submission, but with a particular requirement that it be medically relevant. I then put together a manuscript and submitted it. After the usual back-and-forth over forms and formality, the manuscript was sent off for reviews. Within 2 weeks I got back 4 reviews which were both helpful and also surprising. Surprising in that the topic was somewhat foreign to medical literature. My subsequent updates in response to the reviewer comments went smoothly and in short order I had a series of proofs to evaluate. All in all, the whole publication process seemed outstanding. It was both helpful in terms of the paper’s content and also in terms of its efficient and friendly communications. Thank you all very much. Sincerely, Ted Christopher, Rochester, NY.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is a high quality journal that has a clear and concise submission process. The peer review process was comprehensive and constructive. Support from the editorial office was excellent, since the administrative staff were responsive. The journal provides a fast and timely publication timeline.
Dear Cecilia Lilly, Editorial Coordinator, Endocrinology and Disorders, Thank you so much for your quick response regarding reviewing and all process till publishing our manuscript entitled: Prevalence of Pre-Diabetes and its Associated Risk Factors Among Nile College Students, Sudan. Best regards, Dr Mamoun Magzoub.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions. I am really grateful for the peers review; their feedback gave me the opportunity to reflect on the message and impact of my work and to ameliorate the article. The editors did a great job in addition by encouraging me to continue with the process of publishing.
Dear Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator of ‘International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews Herewith I confirm an optimal peer review process and a great support of the editorial office of the present journal
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of ‘International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews’, I appreciate the opportunity to publish my article with your journal. The editorial office provided clear communication during the submission and review process, and I found the overall experience professional and constructive. Best regards, Elena Salvatore.
Dear Editorial Team, Journal-Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, “Publishing my article with Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions has been a highly positive experience. The peer-review process was rigorous yet supportive, offering valuable feedback that strengthened my work. The editorial team demonstrated exceptional professionalism, prompt communication, and a genuine commitment to maintaining the highest scientific standards. I am very pleased with the publication quality and proud to be associated with such a reputable journal.” Warm regards, Dr. Mahmoud Kamal Moustafa Ahmed
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions. It was truly a rewarding experience to work with the journal “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. The peer review process was insightful and encouraging, helping us refine our work to a higher standard. The editorial office offered exceptional support with prompt and thoughtful communication. I highly value the journal’s role in promoting scientific advancement and am honored to be part of it. Best regards, Meng-Jou Lee, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. Thank you for publishing our case report: "Clinical Case of Effective Fetal Stem Cells Treatment in a Patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder" within the "Journal of Clinical Research and Reports" being submitted by the team of EmCell doctors from Kyiv, Ukraine. We much appreciate a professional and transparent peer-review process from Auctores. All research Doctors are so grateful to your Editorial Office and Auctores Publishing support! I amiably wish our article publication maintained a top quality of your International Scientific Journal. My best wishes for a prosperity of the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. Hope our scientific relationship and cooperation will remain long lasting. Thank you very much indeed. Kind regards, Dr. Andriy Sinelnyk Cell Therapy Center EmCell
I recommend without hesitation submitting relevant papers on medical decision making to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I am very grateful to the editorial staff. Maria Emerson was a pleasure to communicate with. The time from submission to publication was an extremely short 3 weeks. The editorial staff submitted the paper to three reviewers. Two of the reviewers commented positively on the value of publishing the paper. The editorial staff quickly recognized the third reviewer’s comments as an unjust attempt to reject the paper. I revised the paper as recommended by the first two reviewers.
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. “The peer review process was efficient and constructive, and the editorial office provided excellent communication and support throughout. The journal ensures scientific rigor and high editorial standards, while also offering a smooth and timely publication process. We sincerely appreciate the work of the editorial team in facilitating the dissemination of innovative approaches such as the Bonori Method.” Best regards, Dr. Matteo Bonori.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, we have deeply appreciated the professionalism demonstrated by the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The reviewers have extensive knowledge of our field and have been very efficient and fast in supporting the process. I am really looking forward to further collaboration. Thanks. Best regards, Dr. Claudio Ligresti
Dear Ms. Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. “The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews represented the “ideal house” to share with the research community a first experience with the use of the Simeox device for speech rehabilitation. High scientific reputation and attractive website communication were first determinants for the selection of this Journal, and the following submission process exceeded expectations: fast but highly professional peer review, great support by the editorial office, elegant graphic layout. Exactly what a dynamic research team - also composed by allied professionals - needs!" From, Chiara Beccaluva, PT - Italy.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, Auctores Publishing LLC, USA Office: +1-(302)-520-2644. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the efficient and professional handling of my case report by the ‘Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies’. The peer review process was not only fast but also highly constructive—the reviewers’ comments were clear, relevant, and greatly helped me improve the quality and clarity of my manuscript. I also received excellent support from the editorial office throughout the process. Communication was smooth and timely, and I felt well guided at every stage, from submission to publication. The overall quality and rigor of the journal are truly commendable. I am pleased to have published my work with Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, and I look forward to future opportunities for collaboration. Sincerely, Aline Tollet, UCLouvain.
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation, Auctores Publishing LLC, We would like to thank the editorial team for the smooth and high-quality communication leading up to the publication of our article in the Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. The reviewers have extensive knowledge in the field, and their relevant questions helped to add value to our publication. Kind regards, Dr. Ravi Shrivastava.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, I would like to express my deep admiration for the exceptional professionalism demonstrated by your journal. I am thoroughly impressed by the speed of the editorial process, the substantive and insightful reviews, and the meticulous preparation of the manuscript for publication. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the courteous and immediate responses from your editorial office to all my inquiries. Best Regards, Dariusz Ziora
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. Thank you for publishing our article, Exploring Clozapine's Efficacy in Managing Aggression: A Multiple Single-Case Study in Forensic Psychiatry in the international journal of clinical case reports and reviews. We found the peer review process very professional and efficient. The comments were constructive, and the whole process was efficient. On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank you for publishing this article. With regards, Dr. Jelle R. Lettinga.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. The peer review process of the journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions was excellent and fast, as was the support of the editorial office and the quality of the journal. Kind regards Walter F. Riesen Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Walter F. Riesen.
Dear Erin Aust, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice. We are pleased to share our experience with the “Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice”, following the successful publication of our article. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, helping to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. We are especially thankful to Ms. Erin Aust, the Editorial Coordinator, for her prompt communication and continuous support throughout the process. Her professionalism ensured a smooth and efficient publication experience. The journal upholds high editorial standards, and we highly recommend it to fellow researchers seeking a credible platform for their work. Best wishes By, Dr. Rakhi Mishra.
Dr Hala Al Shaikh This is to acknowledge that the peer review process for the article ’ A Novel Gnrh1 Gene Mutation in Four Omani Male Siblings, Presentation and Management ’ sent to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was quick and smooth. The editorial office was prompt with easy communication.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The entire process including article submission, review, revision, and publication was extremely easy. The journal editor was prompt and helpful, and the reviewers contributed to the quality of the paper. Thank you so much! Eric Nussbaum, MD
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. Many thanks for publishing this manuscript after I lost confidence the editors were most helpful, more than other journals Best wishes from, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. I am delighted to have published our manuscript, "Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction (ACPO): A rare but serious complication following caesarean section." I want to thank the editorial team, especially Maria Emerson, for their prompt review of the manuscript, quick responses to queries, and overall support. Yours sincerely Dr. Victor Olagundoye.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. I appreciate the journal (JCCI) editorial office support, the entire team leads were always ready to help, not only on technical front but also on thorough process. Also, I should thank dear reviewers’ attention to detail and creative approach to teach me and bring new insights by their comments. Surely, more discussions and introduction of other hemodynamic devices would provide better prevention and management of shock states. Your efforts and dedication in presenting educational materials in this journal are commendable. Best wishes from, Farahnaz Fallahian.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator of the journal - Psychology and Mental Health Care. " The process of obtaining publication of my article in the Psychology and Mental Health Journal was positive in all areas. The peer review process resulted in a number of valuable comments, the editorial process was collaborative and timely, and the quality of this journal has been quickly noticed, resulting in alternative journals contacting me to publish with them." Warm regards, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Jessica, and the super professional team of the ‘Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions’ I am sincerely grateful to the coordinated work of the journal team for the no problem with the submission of my manuscript: “Cardiometabolic Disorders in A Pregnant Woman with Severe Preeclampsia on the Background of Morbid Obesity (Case Report).” The review process by 5 experts was fast, and the comments were professional, which made it more specific and academic, and the process of publication and presentation of the article was excellent. I recommend that my colleagues publish articles in this journal, and I am interested in further scientific cooperation. Sincerely and best wishes, Dr. Oleg Golyanovskiy.
To Dear Erin Aust – Editorial Coordinator of Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice! I declare that I am absolutely satisfied with your work carried out with great competence in following the manuscript during the various stages from its receipt, during the revision process to the final acceptance for publication. Thank Prof. Elvira Farina
My article, titled 'No Way Out of the Smartphone Epidemic Without Considering the Insights of Brain Research,' has been republished in the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The review process was seamless and professional, with the editors being both friendly and supportive. I am deeply grateful for their efforts.
We found the peer review process quick and positive in its input. The support from the editorial officer has been very agile, always with the intention of improving the article and taking into account our subsequent corrections.
Dear Jessica Magne, with gratitude for the joint work. Fast process of receiving and processing the submitted scientific materials in “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. High level of competence of the editors with clear and correct recommendations and ideas for enriching the article.
I thank the ‘Journal of Clinical Research and Reports’ for accepting this article for publication. This is a rigorously peer reviewed journal which is on all major global scientific data bases. I note the review process was prompt, thorough and professionally critical. It gave us an insight into a number of important scientific/statistical issues. The review prompted us to review the relevant literature again and look at the limitations of the study. The peer reviewers were open, clear in the instructions and the editorial team was very prompt in their communication. This journal certainly publishes quality research articles. I would recommend the journal for any future publications.
"I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to [International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews] and for the rigorous review process that enhances the quality of research published in your esteemed journal. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of your team who have dedicatedly helped me in improvising changes and modifying my manuscript. The insightful comments and constructive feedback provided have been invaluable in refining and strengthening my work".
To Dear Erin Aust, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to have my work published in this esteemed journal. The entire publication process was smooth and well-organized, and I am extremely satisfied with the final result. The Editorial Team demonstrated the utmost professionalism, providing prompt and insightful feedback throughout the review process. Their clear communication and constructive suggestions were invaluable in enhancing my manuscript, and their meticulous attention to detail and dedication to quality are truly commendable. Additionally, the support from the Editorial Office was exceptional. From the initial submission to the final publication, I was guided through every step of the process with great care and professionalism. The team's responsiveness and assistance made the entire experience both easy and stress-free. I am also deeply impressed by the quality and reputation of the journal. It is an honor to have my research featured in such a respected publication, and I am confident that it will make a meaningful contribution to the field.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the support and efficiency provided by the editorial office throughout the publication process of my article, “Delayed Vulvar Metastases from Rectal Carcinoma: A Case Report.” I greatly appreciate the assistance and guidance I received from your team, which made the entire process smooth and efficient. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, contributing to the overall quality of the final article. I am very grateful for the high level of professionalism and commitment shown by the editorial staff, and I look forward to maintaining a long-term collaboration with the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
Dear Agrippa Hilda- Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, "The peer review process was very quick and of high quality, which can also be seen in the articles in the journal. The collaboration with the editorial office was very good."
I would like to offer my testimony in the support. I have received through the peer review process and support the editorial office where they are to support young authors like me, encourage them to publish their work in your esteemed journals, and globalize and share knowledge globally. I really appreciate your journal, peer review, and editorial office.
My experience publishing in International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was exceptional. I Come forth to Provide a Testimonial Covering the Peer Review Process and the editorial office for the Professional and Impartial Evaluation of the Manuscript.
My experience publishing in Psychology and Mental Health Care was exceptional. The peer review process was rigorous and constructive, with reviewers providing valuable insights that helped enhance the quality of our work. The editorial team was highly supportive and responsive, making the submission process smooth and efficient. The journal's commitment to high standards and academic rigor makes it a respected platform for quality research. I am grateful for the opportunity to publish in such a reputable journal.
My Testimonial Covering as fellowing: Lin-Show Chin. The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
