AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2692-9562/109
1 Junior Resident, Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head, Neck Surgery, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre. City-Nashik, State- Maharashtra, Country- India.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head, Neck Surgery, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre. City-Nashik, State- Maharashtra, Country- India.
3 Associate Professor and Head of Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head, Neck Surgery, Kiran Medical College. City- Surat, State- Gujarat, Country- India.
4 Professor and Head of Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head, Neck Surgery, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre. City-Nashik, State- Maharashtra, Country- India.
5 Junior Resident, Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head, Neck Surgery, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre. City-Nashik, State- Maharashtra, Country- India.
*Corresponding Author: Suramya Dhamija, Junior Resident, Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head, Neck Surgery, Dr. Vasantrao Pawar Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre. City-Nashik, State- Maharashtra, Country- India.
Citation: Suramya Dhamija, Rushika Patel, Shashikant Anil Pol, Shreeya Kulkarni, Nirmala Yamagar (2024). Comparing Treatment Outcome of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray and Nasal Douching, Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology, 6(1); DOI:10.31579/2692-9562/109
Copyright: © 2023, Suramya Dhamija. 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: 08 January 2024 | Accepted: 19 February 2024 | Published: 30 January 2024
Keywords: otorhinolaryngological symptoms; immunedeficiency; traditional chinese medicine; energy; homeopathy; hippocrates
Introduction: Allergic Rhinitis (AR) is a major public health issue with significant societal and financial costs, whose management requires time and resources. Although in recent years several new studies have been performed on treatment of the disease, scientific evidence remains poor because many of the studies had relevant methodologic problems.
Aims: To study and compare clinical profile of AR patients and their clinical symptomatic outcome after using: i)Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray regimen or ii)Saline Nasal Irrigation/Douching using subjective SNOT-22 questionnaire.
Material and Methods: A Prospective study was conducted on 74 AR patients (38 males and 36 females) with Moderate-Severe and Persistent symptoms, visiting Out-Patient Department of Otorhinolaryngology in a tertiary care institute. On a random basis, 37 patients were administered Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray treatment and 37 patients were given Saline Nasal Douching treatment regimen. The patients filled the SNOT-22 questionnaire prior to commencement of treatment as also post completion.The findings were statistically validated by using the Paired sample t-test.
Conclusion: The study establishes that for management of patients of AR with Moderate-Severe and Persistent symptoms, Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray regimen can be more effectively used for patients while Saline Nasal Irrigation/Douching though provided relief was lesser effective and produced lower reduction in SNOT-22 score.
Allergic Rhinitis (AR) is a symptomatic rhinological disorder induced after allergen exposure due to an IgE-mediated inflammation of membranes lining the nose. Clinically, rhinitis is defined as a symptomatic condition having two or more symptoms of anterior or posterior rhinorrhoea, sneezing, nasal blockage and/or itching of nose during two or more consecutive days for more than one hour on most days.[1,2]
Allergic Rhinitis symptoms include sleep disturbance, exhaustion, low mood and impaired cognitive function and considerable absenteeism from work, all of which reduce productivity and quality of life. There may also be related dental malocclusion, facial abnormalities, postnasal drip, secretory otitis media, sinusitis, Eustachian tube dysfunction and allergic conjunctivitis. Domestic allergens such as mites, domestic animals, insects, plant derived allergens, pollens and moulds can cause AR. Also, occupational triggers like latex, cigarette smoke, vehicular exhaust as well as aspirin and other non- steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines may also cause AR. It can also be associated with co-morbid conditions like Asthma, Atopic Dermatitis and Nasal polyps.[3,4,5]
Allergic Rhinitis is affecting approximately between 0.8 to 39.7% of the world population according to International Study on Asthma and Allergy in Childhood (ISAAC 3). Prevalence of AR ranged from 25 to 30% in India, 3.6% to 22.8% for Africa, 3.5% to 54.5% for America, 1.0% to 47.9% for Asia and 1.0% to 43.9% for Europe according to a recent study on worldwide prevalence of Allergic Rhinitis.[6].Currently, developed urban lifestyle is showing more incidence of Allergic Rhinitis - may be due to reduced exposure to infective agents in urban areas which reduces Th1 response thus increasing Th2 immune response causing excessive production of IgE and atopy.[1]
Allergic Rhinitis can be managed by various pharmacological means like oral or topical antihistaminics, steroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs), sodium cromoglicate, nasal decongestants, topical ipratropium bromide spray, saline nasal douching and immunotherapy or desensitization. The symptoms can also be lessened by reducing the submucosal fibrotic tissue on the inferior turbinates. Complimentary treatments like homeopathy, acupuncture or herbal remedies can provide some symptomatic relief but no permanent cure has been proven by them. Reduction of allergen exposure has proven effective to decrease its prevalence.[7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]
This study observes the clinical profile of patients with Allergic Rhinitis after using i) Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray regimen and ii) Saline Nasal Irrigation/Douching and also the outcome in terms of symptom improvement and patient satisfaction with the subjective SNOT-22 questionnaire [15,16,17] after using either modes of treatment.
Present study is a prospective study performed on the patients visiting the Out Patient Department (OPD) of Department of Otorhinolaryngology, of a tertiary care centre from August 2020 to December 2022 on a sample of 74 patients.
Study Participants
Inclusion Criteria
All cases of Allergic Rhinitis patients having moderate severe and persistent symptoms attending ENT clinic in a tertiary care centre, irrespective of both genders, aged between 18 to 57 years, who have completed the SNOT-22 questionnaire pre-treatment and within 3 months post treatment and giving informed consent.
Exclusion Criteria
Cases with growth in the nasal cavity, benign or malignant, with sinusitis and nasal polyps, Allergy, hypersensitivity, contraindication to steroids or with nasal septal perforation.
Cases who were not willing to participate in the study.
Sampling Technique
All the patients coming to ENT OPD during the study period and fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study.
Data Collection
Study Tools
Predesigned questionnaire was used which consisted of general and health related information.
Ethical Considerations
After getting institutional permission and the informed written consent from participants required information was collected.
Confidentiality was assured to all the study participants
Methodology
This study included patients with two or more symptoms of anterior or posterior rhinorrhoea, sneezing, nasal blockage and/or itching of nose during two or more consecutive days for more than 1 hour on four or more days of a week or greater than four consecutive weeks. All patients had moderate- severe symptoms (abnormal sleep, impairment of daily activities, sport, leisure); problems caused at school or work, troublesome symptoms.
The patients were examined by Anterior Rhinoscopy and Diagnostic Nasal Endoscopy (0-degree scopy) prior to commencement of treatment. Detailed clinical history of the participants was recorded in a pre-defined proforma. The participants were explained SNOT-22 questionnaire in English and native Marathi language and were asked to fill the same. Total 22 entities were asked and the score for each question ranged from 0 (no problem) to 5 (worse). It was ensured that participating patients were not taking any regular or occasional oral or parenteral antihistaminics during the study period.
On a random selection basis, 37 patients out of the total 74 were advised to take Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray - 2 puffs per nostril (50 mcg per spray) twice daily (once in the morning and one at night) for first three weeks and called to OPD for follow up, then 2 puffs once daily for next five weeks and called for follow up at the end of two months.
Other group of 37 patients were explained the nasal douching technique and asked to perform nasal douching twice daily for 1st three weeks then called for follow up, followed by once daily for next five weeks and called for follow up at the end of two months.
All patients were asked to fill the SNOT-22 Questionnaire again at the end.
Steps for using Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray
The spray was typically applied once or twice daily (once in the morning and once at night). The patients were instructed to use their finger to seal one nostril. Then bending the head forward and carefully inserting the nozzle into the other nostril, slowly inhaling through the nose, they squirted the spray into the nostril, while applying pressure with the fingers to the nozzle's widest part while exhaling through their mouth.[18]
Steps for Nasal Douching
Patients were advised to perform Nasal Douching using the nasal douching kit readily available in the medical stores - a 200 ml sterile squeeze bottle and 10 sachets; each sachet consisting of 7.8g of pre- mixed dry powder of Sodium Chloride 4.0g, Sodium Bicarbonate and Xylitol.
The patients were told to empty the contents of entire one sachet into the bottle, pour previously boiled lukewarm water into the bottle upto 200ml and gently shake it until the powder dissolved. Bending over a basin, keeping the mouth open, they gently squeezed the bottle in pulsing action into the nostril. Allowing half of the solution to wash through the nasal passage and come out of the other nostril, the process was repeated for the other nostril.[19]
Statistical Analysis
A master sheet of meticulously collected data was prepared in Microsoft Excel sheet. The appropriate statistical analysis was done using Microsoft Excel and SNOT 22. Data was presented in the form of figures and tables.
Application of Paired sample T-test :
The findings were statistically validated by using the Paired sample t-test which compares the means of two variables for a single group - before and after treatment. The test compares the differences between values of two variables for each case and tests whether the average differs from 0.
Sample Size : The study was conducted on a sample of total number of 74 patients, of which, 38 patients (51.35%) were males and 36 patients (48.64%) were females.
Incidence of Disease : While 46 patients (62.16%) had Perennial Allergic Rhinitis, 28 patients (37.84%) had Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis.
Figure 1: Distribution of patients as per incidence of disease - Perennial/Seasonal
Figure 2 : Age wise distribution of patients with Treatment modality
Distribution of patients based on Anterior Rhinoscopy – Nasal Endoscopy
Table 1 : Distribution Of Patients Based On Anterior Rhinoscopy And Nasal Endoscopic Findings
Total 22 entities were asked in the SNOT-22 questionnaire and the score for each question ranges from 0 (no problem) to 5 (worse). The total score could range from 0 to 110. Thus a higher mean/average SNOT-22 score indicated higher severity disease. The difference between Pre and Post Treatment SNOT scores in all the above groups was statistically highly significant as p-value was less than 0.001, and the mean SNOT score reduced from Pre to Post treatment.
Application of Paired sample T-test :
The findings of application of Paired sample t-test are given in tables here below :
Table 2 : Paired Sample Statistics
Table 3 : Paired Differences T-Test Results
The difference between Pre and Post treatment SNOT in all the above study groups is statistically highly significant as p-value is less than 0.001.
After using either treatment modalities significant reduction of Mean SNOT score indicates satisfactory symptomatic improvement in patients whether they used Fluticasone Nasal Spray regimen or Saline Nasal Douching. However, reduction in mean SNOT-22 score and symptomatic relief was better in Fluticasone spray group (Pre-treatment SNOT score - 83.81 and Post-treatment SNOT score - 63.89 and Mean reduction was 19.92) than the Saline Nasal Douching group (Pre-treatment SNOT score - 82.67 and Post-treatment SNOT score - 67.72 and Mean reduction was 14.95).
Allergic Rhinitis is a highly prevalent condition in adults and children, with a large burden on patients and on the healthcare systems, both directly, from the cost of repeated healthcare visits and of chronic medical therapies, and indirectly, via absenteeism from work and loss of productivity.
The present study was conducted on a sample of 74 patients. Gender distribution in the present study had 38 males (51.35%) and 36 females (48.65%). While 37 patients (50%) were administered Fluticasone Nasal Spray treatment, 37 patients (50%) were given Saline Nasal Douching treatment regimen. Age-wise distribution of participants and treatment modality is indicated in Fig. 3.
In present study, while 46 patients (62.16%) had Perennial AR, 28 patients (37.84%) had Seasonal disease. Distribution of patients based on Anterior Rhinoscopy – Nasal Endoscopy is given in Table 1.
After using either treatment modalities there was significant reduction of Mean SNOT-22 score and satisfactory symptomatic improvement in patients whether they used Fluticasone Nasal Spray regimen or Saline Nasal Douching. Mean SNOT Scores in Pre-treatment and Post treatment under different scenarios is given in Table 3. On a comparative basis, the reduction in Mean SNOT-22 score was better in case of patients using Fluticasone Nasal Spray.
A prospective study by de Souza Fernandes et al. done in 2013-14 studied the usefulness of Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) curves to assess treatment outcomes for children with AR. 40 children aged 8 to 15 with AR symptoms, diagnosed using AR and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines, and confirmed by allergy testing, were monitored for 10 weeks for the two treatment modalities. The study concluded that Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray provided better symptomatic relief than saline irrigation. While above study covered only children, our study covered adult population with AR symptoms. Our study did not use PNIF curves but concluded upon Fluticasone treatment modality being better of the two by greater reduction in mean snot score pre and post treatment in this group.[20]
In 2014, Shaun A. Nguyen, MD, MA, Alkis J. Psaltis, MBBS, PhD, and Rodney J. Schlosser, MD, through their study on 40 patients concluded that large-volume, low–positive pressure nasal irrigation with isotonic saline is a very effective adjunctive modality to improve quality of life in patients with AR who are already on intranasal corticosteroid therapy as against intranasal corticosteroids treatment alone. Our study included patients who were not on any ongoing corticosteroids and we initiated their treatments on two treatment modalities and used SNOT-22 scores to compare the results.[21]
In 2021, P Kiruba Shankari, Swathi Suresh and Rukaiah Fatma Begum conducted a prospective comparative study on 62 patients of mild-to-moderate AR on the efficacy of intranasal Fluticasone Propionate and Budesonide in management of disease. While 30 patients received Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate aqueous spray, 32 patients received Intranasal Budesonide aqueous spray. While both the groups showed statistically significant reduction in symptoms, Fluticasone Propionate was found to be significantly more effective (P<0>
Head K, Snidvongs K, Glew S, Scadding G, Schilder AGM, Philpott C, Hopkins C conducted a systematic review in 2018 regarding use of saline irrigation for AR (A Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 6) - which highlighted that people who suffer from AR benefitted from using nasal saline irrigation, both in the short-term and long-term. Our study also used saline irrigation over a period of two months and proved its effectiveness.[23]
From the study findings, we can say that in patients with Moderate-Severe and Persistent symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis, both Fluticasone Nasal Spray regimen and Saline Nasal Douching provided symptomatic relief to the patients and can be used very effectively for patients with Seasonal disease or Perennial diseases, in any age group between 18 to 57 years, and in patients with deviated nasal septum or turbinate hypertrophy and causes similar symptomatic relief irrespective of gender.
However, Fluticasone Nasal Spray provided better symptomatic relief as observed from better reduction in Mean SNOT-22 score. None of the patients out of the total 74 patients reported experiencing any adverse/side-effects or worsening of their symptoms.
We can firmly comment that both modalities were proven to be effective and improved the quality of lives of the patients and provided symptomatic relief to them irrespective of gender. The reduction in mean SNOT-22 score and symptomatic relief was better in Fluticasone spray group (Pre-treatment SNOT score - 83.81 and Post-treatment SNOT score - 63.89 and Mean reduction was 19.92) than the Saline Nasal Douching group (Pre-treatment SNOT score - 82.67 and Post-treatment SNOT score - 67.72 and Mean reduction was 14.95).
Allergic Rhinitis is a global health problem with considerable economic & societal burdens. As the disease is a form of allergy, its management requires time and resources. Although in recent years several new studies have been performed on treatment of the disease, scientific evidence remains poor because many of the studies had relevant methodologic problems. This is further demonstrated by the very small number of studies that were specifically performed to evaluate the impact of Nasal Douching for the most common clinical conditions.
We can conclude that both the treatment modalities were proven to be effective and provided symptomatic relief and improved the lives of the patients as per subjective SNOT-22 questionnaire feedback provided by the sample patients covered in the Study. However, Fluticasone treatment modalities was proven to be better out of the two.
Thus, for patients with Moderate-Severe and persistent symptoms of Allergic Rhinitis initiation of Fluticasone Nasal Spray regimen is a better treatment option in comparison to Saline Nasal Douching which is more suitable in milder cases or as an adjuvant to steroid spray.
It is expected that this study will provide important guidance to other Otorhinolaryngologists in managing the patients of Allergic Rhinitis using Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Spray regimen and Saline Nasal Douching.
Authors declare that they have no Economic Interest or Conflict of Interest.
No Economic or Conflict of Interest of the Authors is envisaged in this Study.
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.
