AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Chat with us
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2694-0248/048
1 Pharmacy Department, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
2 Melbourne Epicentre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
3 University of Melbourne, Statistics and Data Science, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
*Corresponding Author: Van N. Tran, Orthopaedic Clinical Pharmacist, The Royal Melbourne Hospital: City Campus Pharmacy Department Grattan Street, Parkville Victoria Australia 3050.
Citation: Van N. Tran, Brennan J. Fitzpatrick and Sourav Das, (2022), Antiemetics and Apfel Scores in Orthopaedic Surgery, J Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma Care, 4(5); DOI: 10.31579/2694-0248/048
Copyright: © 2022, Van N. Tran. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 07 June 2022 | Accepted: 01 August 2022 | Published: 30 August 2022
Keywords: Apfel score; surgery; patients; post-operative nausea and vomiting; antiemetic agents; perioperative medicine; orthopaedics
Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following orthopaedic surgery. Only a few risk factors have consistently been reported to be independent predictors for PONV.
Aim: To report Apfel scores for orthopaedic patients then correlate these scores to the number of antiemetics prescribed and subsequently administered in both the perioperative and post operative setting and determine if screening for Apfel scores is beneficial to predict PONV.
Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients admitted under orthopaedic units between 1st July2019 and 31st July 2019 was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. Patients were screened and allocated an Apfel score and antiemetics agents prescribed and subsequently administered were recorded.
Results: A total of 115 patients were screened for inclusion. Of these four patients met this exclusion criteria, resulting in a total sample size of 111 patients. An Apfel score of two was reported in 45.0% of patients, followed by 28.8%of patients scoring three, with 12.6% scoring one. Only 5.4% of patients scored the highest risk of four, with 8.2% of patients with no Apfel score documented.
Conclusion: Orthopaedic patients tend to score two or more in their Apfel score placing them at higher risk of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting according to the collectively validated Apfel’s simplified risk score. There was no statistically significant relationship between theApfel score and the number of antiemetic agents prescribed or administered from both the perioperative and post-operative setting following orthopaedic surgery in this cohort of adult patients.
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant complication that has been commonly reported following surgery [1]. In Australia approximately 10.6 million people were hospitalised during 2016-2017 [2]. One in four of these patients required surgical procedures. Approximately 30% of all post-surgical patients and up to 80% of those classified as high risk of PONV patients will develop symptoms of nausea and/or vomiting following some degree of surgical intervention [3].
PONV is defined as any nausea, retching or vomiting occurring during the first 24-48 hours post-surgical procedure [3]. Unresolved nausea and vomiting are often associated with a delay in recovery following a surgical procedure [4]. In adults, only a few risk factors have consistently been shown to be independent predictors for PONV. These include patient-related factors such as female gender, non-smoking status, history of PONV and postoperative opioids usage. Collectively these risk factors are known to be incorporated in the Apfel score [5].
Apfel et al. established these risk factors by analysing prospectively collected data on patients from two centres of different countries who underwent general anaesthesia with volatile anaesthetics [6]. Apfel et al. concluded that these established patient specific risk factors could therefore be used to predict PONV in patients worldwide [6]. Studies investigating the relationship between the type of surgery and incidence of PONV have reported conflicting results [7]. Orthopaedic surgery is generally considered high risk of PONV due to extensive bone manipulation, high opioid usage, frequency of high-risk patients and prolonged general anaesthetic exposure [8].
Identifying high risk patients and ensuring that they are given appropriate prophylactic antiemetic agents during the surgery is considered best practice in preventing PONV [1). This audit will report Apfel score for orthopaedic patients then correlate these scores to the number of antiemetics prescribed and subsequently administered during surgery, in the post-anaesthetic care unit (PACU) and post-operatively in the surgical ward.
Study design:
An inpatient retrospective audit was conducted at a major tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. Patients were asked if they had a history of PONV during their routine medication history consultation during the audit period, which was recorded via the template sticker (Refer to Appendix A) and filed in patient medical records. Data was then collected by reviewing patients’ electronic medical records in the following month. Patients were included in the four-week audit period if they underwent orthopaedic surgical management. Ethics approval was obtained by the ethics approval committee at The Royal Melbourne Hospital: Office of Research, Melbourne Health (ref QA2018046).
Inclusion criteria:
Patients were eligible for inclusion in the audit if they were admitted between 1st July 2019 to 31st July 2019, under specific orthopaedics codes (ORTHO, ORTHS, ORTHM) and under went a surgical procedure as retrieved from the hospital’s central database patient management system. Bone related operative intervention under the units of general orthopaedics (ORTHO), spinal related surgeries (ORTHS) or high risk orthomedical (ORTHM) patients, were all collectively categorised as orthopaedic surgery.
Exclusion criteria:
Patients were excluded if one or more of the following criteria were met: continual repeated antiemetics prescribed during hospital stay; patients under the age of 16;intensive care unit (ICU) admission; chemotherapy treatment; non-operative management (conservative management); deceased during the admission. A chemotherapy agent is defined as specific chemical agents or drugs that are selectively destructive to malignant cells and tissues used for the treatment of cancer [9].
Outcome measures:
The primary outcome was the distribution of Apfel score, a measure of risk of PONV. The secondary outcome was to determine if there was a correlation between Apfel score and the number of antiemetic prescribed and Apfel score and the number of antiemetic administered during surgery, in PACU or post-operatively on the surgical ward.
Data Collection:
Data was obtained through collecting patient information from medical records via electronic contents manager and pathology viewer program. Data was examined and entered via the Research Electronic Data Capture: RED cap® [10] tool by two auditors, to maintain reproducibility and to strengthen the auditing process via reduction in potential for measurement bias. The clinical pharmacist of the unit screened and completed the Apfel score for orthopaedic patients for the audit period. Auditors screened the anaesthetic record forms for peri-operative antiemetic data and the national inpatient medication chart for prescriptions of antiemetic agents and number of these orders administered for post-operative data.
Data Analysis:
Results from the data collection tool were analysed manually and using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. The data was analysed to obtain the agents and number of patients prescribed and administered each antiemetic (when required) post-operatively. Patient characteristics were recorded (Refer to table 1) to display the cohort of patients that were included.
Table 1: Patient characteristics
Statistical analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS statistical software[11]. The association between prescription of antiemetic drugs for the ward setting and Apfel score is shown in (Graph1). In Table 2, we present the parameter estimatesand corresponding odds ratios of a logistic regressionwith dichotomized dependent variable, prescription of antiemetic drugs, with Apfel score as covariates [12]. A poisson log-linear regression model is used to study the association between the number of prescribed antiemetic drugs versus Apfel scores.
Graph 1: Bar plots show the distribution of number of antiemetic agents’ vs Apfel Score
Table 2: Anti-emetic agents administered during surgery.
A total of 115 patients were screened for inclusion from 1st July 2019 to 31st of July 2019. Of these four patients met the exclusion criteria, resulting in 111 patients included in this audit (Refer to Figure 1: Flow diagram).
Flow Diagram
Patient characteristics
Patient characteristics are summarised in Table 1. The sample size included 55.8 % males and 44.2% females. Female median age was 56 with males slighter younger at 48. Males were heavier (average weight 87.6kg) compared to females (average weight 76.5kg),with one male patient in excess of 145kg, influencing the overall average weight. Females were shorter by comparison to males and were slightly less (1.2%) likely to smoke.
Females had more co morbidities but proportionately lower history of PONV (Refer to Table1).
Apfel Score
An Apfel score of two was reported in 45.0% of patients, followed by 28.8% of patients scoring three, with 12.6% scoring one. Only 5.4% of patients scored the highest risk of four, with 8.2% of patients with no Apfel score documented (Refer to Graph 1).
Number of antiemetic agents prescribed and administered in theatres
A higher proportion of patients included in the study had an ApfelScore of two. Of these a high majority received at least one intraoperative agent. But the administration of at least one medication agent was disproportionately higher for the Apfel score two.
Compared to the Apfel score of zero we did not see a significant increase in medications prescribed for the other Apfel score groupings (refer Graph 2). All patients with an Apfel score of 2 received at least one intraoperative agent with 33% of these patients receiving more than one prophylactic antiemetic agent. Of the patients with an Apfel score greater than or equal to 3, 47% received more than a single intraoperative antiemetic agent (Refer to Graph 2).
Graph 2: Number of agents administered peri-operatively (prophylaxis)
Post-operatively in PACU patients were prescribed a mean of 1 antiemetic, 93% of anti- emetic orders in PACU were ondansetron (Refer to Graph 3). A total of 14 patients required at administration of at least one anti-emetic for PONV treatment in PACU (Referto Graph 4).
Graph 3: Number of antiemetic prescribed for PACU
Graph 4: Number of antiemetic administered in PACU
In the theatre setting, dexamethasone 8mg was the most commonly administered agents for PONV prophylaxis, followed by ondansetron 4mg. Droperidol at various doses was the least common agent administered in a theatre setting (Refer to Table 2).
Number of antiemetic agents prescribed and administered in the ward setting.
Most audited patients (n=61) were prescribed only one antiemetic agent, followed by 42 patients who were prescribed for two antiemetic agents, with only four patients that had three agents prescribed. There were four patients that did not have any antiemetics prescribed.
Ondansetron was the most commonly administrated antiemetic agent in the ward setting. A total of 21 patients were given only a single dose, followed by 13 patients who were given two doses, with eight patients given 3 or more doses, of which 1 of these patients was administrated 14 doses in total.
Metoclopramide was the second most commonly administrated antiemetic agent. A total of 6 patients were given one dose, two patients were given two doses, with only one patient who was given three doses. There were nil documented doses administered for domperidone, prochlorperazine or cyclizine in this cohort.
Overall, there was no significant association demonstrated between prescription of antiemetic drugs with Apfel score (Refer to Figure 1: Bar plots show the distribution of number of antiemetic agents vs Apfel score). The data shows that there is a sharp jump in the prescription of one antiemetic agent for patients with an Apfel score of two. However the rate of increase in the number of drugs prescribed is not consistent across Apfel scores. Also antiemetic prescription rates decline both above and below the Apfel score of two.
The observation that there is a greater incidence of PONV in women is purported to be related to hormone fluctuations; particularly variations in progesterone and gonadotrophin (follicle stimulating hormone and luteinising hormone)levels (13). Our study had a relatively even number of males and females eliminating the potential bias of gender over-representation.
Several mechanisms have been postulated for the favorable outcomes produced by cigarette smoke. Firstly, it is possible that tobacco contains an anti-emetic substance providing relief from PONV. However, no such substance has been found to date.
Tolerance to nicotine, which is an emetogenic substance, is another plausible hypothesis. Other possible mechanisms include: effect of smoking on the dopaminergic system which plays an important role in the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting and the effect of environmental pollutants and chemicals that are present in cigarette smoke which can actas potent inducers of liver enzymes (6, 14). It has been proposed that recovery from anaesthesia, including recovery from PONV, could be enhanced by inducing those enzymes that are responsible for the metabolism of anaesthetic agents (6). In this study, approximately 70% patients were non-smokers, evenly distributed amongst male and female participants.
Higher cortical centres such as the limbic system can also be involved especially if the patient has a history of PONV (15). They promote nausea and vomiting associated with unpleasant taste, sight, smell, memory and fear. Patients who have experienced motion sickness or PONV in the past have a well-developed reflex arc which increases their risk of experiencing PONV (15).
Although this study did not report data on opioids, nausea and vomiting induced by opioid use is a well-known effect attributable to agonist activity in both central and peripheral nervous systems (16). Low doses of opioids activate µ-opioid receptors located in the chemoreceptor trigger zone which is involved in nausea and vomiting (17). It has been hypothesized that opioids can also directly act on the vestibular apparatus and increasing the vestibular sensitivity (18). Since the vestibular apparatus has a direct input to the vomiting centre, it is considered to be a significant pathway in the stimulation of opioid induced nausea and vomiting (19). It is appreciated that opioid induced nausea and vomiting is a complex phenomenon involving different pathways with mechanisms of actions still unknown for some (16).
Long and complicated surgeries will often involve more extensive use of anaesthetics resulting in more post-operative complications such as PONV. Future studies could investigate the importance of these other significant factors in causing PONV.
There is also potential for this study to expand into other speciality units such as laparoscopy, plastic surgery, otorhinolaryngology, urology, neurosurgery, ophthalmology and gynaecology before extrapolating the results found in this study to other speciality units (20).
This study had a small sample size of 111 patients in total. Of these patients, 8% did not have their risk score assessed and therefore, were excluded from further analysis Due to the small sample size statistical significance of the relationship between Apfel score and requirement for treatment in PACU could not be determined. Bigger studies conducted across multiple centres are required to test reproducibility and therefore confirm validity of the results found in this smaller study.
There is a vast amount of evidence to suggest that prophylactic use of antiemetic agents pre-surgery can reduce the incidence of PONV especially in patients who are considered high risk. Further studies are required to establish the Apfel score as a risk factor tool in the pre-operative setting.
For intra-operative antiemetic prophylaxis, dexamethasone was the most commonly administered agent, a reflection of recommended guidelines (1). In patients at higher risk of PONV with an Apfel score greater than two, national and local guidance recommends the administration of at least two anti-emetics during surgery. During our study period only 47% of patients received at least two anti-emetic agents for PONV prophylaxis despite an Apfel score greater than two.
Ondansetron is a 5HT3 antagonist, which was the most commonly prescribed anti-emetic agent during the study period followed by metoclopramide (dopamine antagonist). Other agents such as droperidol, prochlorperazine and cyclizine were less commonly prescribed. The prescribing patterns for these agents could be attributed to the availability of medications on the ward and relative ease of access. Use of ondansetron in the management of PONV is a well-established recommendation and considered first line of treatment (1).
Although metoclopramide is not one of the suggested first line therapies for the management of PONV, due to its easy access and availability in larger quantity per dispensing via the pharmaceutical benefit scheme (PBS), it is widely used by prescribers. Cyclizine, droperidol and dexamethasone are as effective drug choices for the relief of PONV. Other contributing factors such as being non-PBS, increased cost and being notas readily available may also decrease its overall use on the wards. Adopting a multi-modal approach with different agents should be considered for patients who are at moderate to high risk as antiemetic agents work independently and are similarly effective, producing a superior result (21). Consequently, the combined effects of these agents would produce a superior response when compared to each individual agent alone.
Data was collected from scanned medical records. The limitation of collecting data retrospectively meant there was a potential for incomplete data. A total 8.1% of patients did not have completed Apfel score documented by the clinical pharmacist. Omitted data affects overall results which may mislead conclusions. A relatively small sample (n=115 patients) size will also affect the limited ability to demonstrate statistical significance, leads to a higher variability, which may lead to bias. Larger studies involving patients from multiple specialities are suggested to validate the results found in this study.
The type of surgery undertaken by each patientwas not recorded. There is some evidence to suggest that patients undergoing high risk orthopaedic surgeries (neck of femur and pelvic fractures), are at greater risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting when compared to low-risk orthopaedic surgeries (joint dislocations and arthroscopic procedures) (22).
The authors recognised detailed reporting of specific surgical procedures may influence the incidence of PONV and this may inevitably affect the prescribing of antiemetics administered to the patient and thus recommended this be reviewed in future research proposals(23).
Other clinically significant risk factors such as anaesthetic technique (general anaesthesia compared to local anaesthesia) and duration of surgery were not assessed in this study.
Orthopaedic surgeries can be of variable duration resulting in differing frequencies in the occurrence of PONV. In this study, the investigators did not take into account the type of orthopaedic surgery that the patients were subject to nor was the duration of surgery reported.
PONV is a common side effect following operative management. The Apfel score includes four variables used as independent predictors for the incidence of PONV. Apfel score for orthopaedic patients are largely concentrated about two or more in their Apfel score placing them at high theoretical risk of PONV.
Overall, there was no relationship between the Apfel score and the number of antiemetic agents prescribed or administered in adult orthopaedic patients, though most patients with a score of two received one antiemetic agent. The recording of an Apfel score in orthopaedic patients did not influence the number of antiemetic agents prescribed nor the number of doses administered, thus pre-screening orthopaedic patients for Apfel scores in this study was not beneficial to predict PONV.
Head of Department: The head of the department, Mr Paul Toner, has given permission for the manuscript to be published.
Potential Conflicts of Interest Statement: None to declare
Acknowledgements: We acknowledge Stefanie N. Edwards, Emily J. Ferraro, Federica Marafioti, Thi Nguyen, Alia Rafhi and On Na Lam, RMIT pharmacy students, for their role as auditors, and The Royal Melbourne hospital pharmacy practice research committee for their contributions and assistance with the review of this report. Study data were collected and managed using the RED Cap® electronic data capture tool hosted by the Royal Melbourne Hospital Business Intelligence Unit.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
“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”.
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.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
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!”
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
