AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Chat with us
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/DOI:10.31579/2639-4162/060
1*Health Center Santa Maria de Benquerencia Toledo, Spain.
*Corresponding Author: Jose Luis Turabian, Health Center Santa Maria de Benquerencia Toledo, Spain.
Citation: Jose Luis Turabian (2022). Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections In Vaccinated People With Vaccine Booster In 2022 Versus Covid-19 Cases In Unvaccinated People In 2020: A New Disease Whose Clinic We Should Know Or Another Cause Of The Old Symptoms Of The Common Cold?. J. General medicine and Clinical Practice, 5(2); DOI:10.31579/2639-4162/060
Copyright: © 2022 Jose Luis Turabian, 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: 06 May 2022 | Accepted: 08 June 2022 | Published: 15 June 2022
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; vaccination; breakthrough infection; epidemiological characteristic; symptoms; acute respiratory Infections; secondary analysis; general practice
Background It is not clear whether the symptoms of covid-19 have varied throughout the pandemic and what effect vaccination may have had. Objective To compare clinical-epidemiological characteristics between cases of covid-19 in 2020 without vaccination, and covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster during 2022 in general medicine. Methodology Comparison of secondary data of cases of covid-19 without vaccination of previous studies in 2020, with other cases of covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster in 2022, all of them carried out in the same population of patients treated in a general medicine office in Toledo, Spain. Results Cases of covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster in 2022 (N= 46) vs. cases in 2020 without vaccination (N=100), differed statistically by being older, having more sociohealth workers, presenting more chronic diseases, and having more ENT symptoms and fewer digestive and psychiatric ones. Conclusions In the context of general medicine in Toledo (Spain), the cases of covid-19 in 2022 are different from those of 2020, affecting older people and showing symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection. This change in symptoms that causes covid-19 to present itself as a common cold can do away with preventive precautions, so it is important to test to see what the symptoms mean. |
In December, 2019, a pneumonia associated with a novel coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China. What started as a cluster of patients with a mysterious respiratory illness was later determined to be coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was subsequently isolated as the causative agent that it is primarily transmitted between people via respiratory droplets and contact routes [1-3].
At the beginning of the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 infection presented clinically with fever, fatigue, myalgias, conjunctivitis, anosmia, dysgeusia, sore throat, nasal congestion, cough, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea. In most critical cases, symptoms could become into acute respiratory distress syndrome accompanied by a runaway inflammatory cytokine response and multiorgan failure [1]. That is, systemic and pulmonary manifestations predominated, with an increasing emphasis placed on gastrointestinal symptoms as both diagnostically and prognostically important [1].
However, covid-19 has shown a wide variety of symptoms; Much remains unknown about why there is such a wide range of responses, and it has been claimed that up to 40% of infections may be asymptomatic [4-6]. SARS-CoV-2, like all viruses, are constantly changing. These changes occur over time and can lead to the emergence of variants that may have new characteristics. In the course of the covid-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 has mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. This is why we are seeing breakthrough infections even in highly vaccinated populations. Booster vaccination was expanded in coincidence with introduction of omicron variant into the population, causing the largest epidemic wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Spain and the world [7-10].
Research of covid-19 symptoms in 190 countries during 2020 showed that the frequency of symptoms of cough, fever, and loss of smell, was different depending on the country and the presence of underlying health conditions such as asthma and diabetes [11]. In addition, it seems that the symptoms with which covid-19 manifested itself at the beginning of the pandemic are no longer the same. Fever seems not to be the most permanent symptom; loss of taste and smell also do not, and runny nose, sore throat or dry cough and headache appear as very frequent symptoms in people with the vaccine [12].
In the current Surveillance and Control Strategy Against Covid-19 in Spain, since April 2022 [13] symptoms compatible with covid-19 are defined as acute respiratory symptoms consisting of sudden onset in the last 10 days of any of the following symptoms: cough, dyspnea, sore throat, or runny nose, with or without fever. Likewise, the UK's official list of covid-19 symptoms was recently updated to include sore throat, fatigue, headache which are now commonly associated with the virus [14].
Understanding the variation of symptoms by location and temporality is crucial for clinical practice; It could help speed diagnosis, predict outcomes more accurately, and guide treatment, especially as new variants emerge. Likewise, the fact of being able to reflect this variation in symptoms in public health messages can contribute to prevention. It has been said that future work should focus on symptom profile variation in emerging SARS-CoV-2 virus variants [11].
In this context, a study is presented based on the secondary analysis of data previously published, referring to the same population attended in a general medicine consultation, and collected by the same general practitioner, which are used to compare clinical-epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with booster in 2022 vs. patients with COVID-19 without vaccination during 2020.
A secondary analysis of data collected, processed, analyzed, and published for purposes other than this research objectives, was conducted to compare clinical-epidemiological characteristics between cases of covid-19 in 2020 without vaccination, and covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster, in general medicine.
Therefore, this study compares data from previous studies:
1. The set of two previous studies on covid-19 cases. A study of covid-19 cases from March 1 to May 31, 2020 (15), and another study from March 15 to November 15, 2020 [16]. In 2020 there were still no vaccines against covid-19; they are therefore cases without vaccination. In this period, from March to April, in Spain, the A lineage of the coronavirus predominated, especially the SEC7 and SEC8, and from summer to December, 2020, the 20E (EU1) variant [17, 18].
And 2. A study of covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster from December 2021 to February 2022 (19, 20). In this period, the omicron variant was dominant in Spain after having displaced the Delta variant [21].
All studies were conducted on the same population: patients saw in a general medicine office in Toledo, Spain, which has a list of 2,000 patients > 14 years of age (in Spain, GPs care for people > 14 years of age, except for exceptions requested by the child's family and accepted by the GP). The GPs in Spain work within the National Health System, which is public in nature, and are the gateway for all patients to the system, and each person is assigned a GP [22]. The methodology of all studies has been previously published [15, 16, 19, 20].
Current study objective
To compare selected clinical-epidemiological characteristics between cases of covid-19 in 2020 without vaccination, and covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster during 2022, in general medicine.
Collected variables
Variables for which data were available in all previous studies that were to be compared were included. The following variables were collected: age, sex, socio-health worker, symptoms and chronic diseases (defined as "any alteration or deviation from normal that has one or more of the following characteristics: is permanent, leaves residual impairment, is caused by a non-reversible pathological alteration, requires special training of the patient for rehabilitation, and / or can be expected to require a long period of control, observation or treatment” [23-25], classified according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health-Related Problems, CD-10 Version: 2019 [26], and severity of the disease (mild cases: clinical symptoms are mild and no manifestation of pneumonia can be found on images; moderate cases: with symptoms such as fever and respiratory tract symptoms, and the manifestation of pneumonia can be seen on the imaging tests; and severe cases: respiratory distress, respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths / min; pulse oxygen saturation ≤ 93% with room air at rest; arterial partial pressure of oxygen / oxygen concentration ≤ 300 mm Hg) [27].
Statistic análisis
The bivariate comparisons were performed using the Chi Square test (X2), X2 with Yates correction or Fisher Exact Test, for percentages (according to the number the expected cell totals), and the Student t test for the mean.
cases of covid-19 that occurred during 2020 were compared with 46 cases of covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster in 2022. The cases of covid-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people with vaccine booster vs. cases in 2020 without vaccination were statistically different for being older, having more socio-health workers, presenting more chronic diseases, and having more ENT symptoms and fewer digestive and psychiatric symptoms (TABLE 1, TABLE 2, and TABLE 3).
( ): Denotes percentages; NS: Not significant
CRHONIC DISEASES ACCORDING TO WHO, ICD-10 GROUPS*
| COVID-19 IN UNVACCINATED PEOPLE IN 2020 (N=100)
| COVID-19 BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS IN VACCINATED PEOPLE WITH VACCINE BOOSTER IN 2022 (N=46) | STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE |
| -II Neoplasms | 3 (3) | 5 (3) | X2 with Yates correction= 0. p= 1. NS |
| -II Diseases of the blood | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | Fisher exact test= 1. NS |
| -IV Endocrine | 26 (23) | 24 (16) | X2= 1.7185. p= .189886. NS |
| -V Mental | 11 (10) | 8 (6) | X2= 1.6685. p= .196455. NS |
| -VI-VIII Nervous and Senses | 9 (8) | 14 (10) | X2= 0.2191. p= .639699. NS |
| -IX Circulatory system | 16 (14) | 18 (12) | X2= 0.1744. p= .676207. NS |
| -X Respiratory system | 12 (10) | 8 (6) | X2= 2.3279. p= .127073. NS |
| -XI Digestive system | 11 (10) | 18 (12) | X2= 0.45. p= .50234. NS |
| -XII Diseases of the skin | 3 (3) | 8 (6) | X2 with Yates correction= 0.6649. p= .414823. NS |
| -XIII Musculo-skeletal | 10 (9) | 17 (12) | X2= 0.5527. p= .457213. NS |
| -XIV Genitourinary | 10 (9) | 23 (16) | X2= 0.6762. p= .410901. NS |
| TOTAL* | 112 (100) | 144 (100) | --- |
Table 2: Comparison of Crhonic Diseases between Covid-19 in Unvaccinated People in 2020 and Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated People with Booster In 2022
( ): Denotes percentages; NS: Not significant; *Patients could have more than one chronic disease. The percentages of chronic diseases are over the total of chronic diseases
SYMPTOMS * ACCORDING TO WHO, ICD-10 GROUPS
| COVID-19 IN UNVACCINATED PEOPLE IN 2020 (N=100)
| COVID-19 BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS IN VACCINATED PEOPLE WITH VACCINE BOOSTER IN 2022 (N=46) | STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE |
| General (discomfort, asthenia, myalgia, fever, artralgias) | 24 (31)
| 34 (31) | X2= 0.0014. p= .969854. NS |
| Respiratory (cough, dyspnea, chest pain) | 19 (25)
| 24 (22) | X2= 0.2088. p= .647699. NS |
| ENT (Anosmia / ageusia, odynophagia, rhinorrhea, pharyngeal dryness-mucus, epixtasis) | 8 (10)
| 41 (37) | X2= 16.9281. p= .000039. Significant at p < .05. |
| Digestive (anorexia, nausea / vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain) | 9 (12)
| 3 (3) | X2 with Yates correction= 4.6562. p= .030941. Significant at p < .05. |
| Neurological (headache, dizziness, mental confusion -brain fog) | 7 (9)
| 8 (7) | X2= 0.2029. p= .652354. NS |
| Psychiatric (Anxiety, insomnia) | 8 (10)
| 0 | Fisher exact test = 0.0007. Significant at p < .05.
|
| Skin (chilblains, flictenas, rash, petechiae) | 2 (3)
| 0 | Fisher exact test= 0.1682. NS |
| Total symptoms* | 77 (100) | 110 (100) | --- |
Table 3: Comparison of Symptoms between Covid-19 in Unvaccinated People in 2020 and Covid-19 Breakthrough Infections in Vaccinated People with Booster In 2022
( ): Denotes percentages; NS: Not significant; *Patients could have more than one symptom; the percentages are over the total of symptoms
One might think that the symptoms of covid-19 are still the same today compared to the start of the pandemic, because the virus is still the same and symptoms not depend on the variant, but on how the body reacts to the virus. However, the understanding of covid-19 is evolving. The main clinical difference between flu and covid-19 was said to be that the latter had shortness of breath as a differential symptom [28]. In the same population of this study, in 2020,we proposed that symptoms suggestive of covid-19 vs. common cold or flu, were cough, fever, dyspnea, general pain, asthenia, nausea-vomiting, pneumonia [29]. On the other hand, it has been found that the frequency of the main symptoms in 2020 (cough, fever and loss of smell), was different depending on the country and the presence of underlying health conditions such as asthma and diabetes [11]. Thus, it must also be taken into account that the symptoms may not depend so much on the variant, but on how the organism reacts to the virus [30]; it could be said that not everything depends on the pathogen, but also on the host and environment [31].
Comparison with other studies
1. Symptoms of covid at the beginning of the pandemic
In the early stage of the pandemic, symptoms are related only to the initial strains of SARS-CoV-2 that circulated between April and September 2020 and are not related to later variants such as Delta or Omicron. Presentations of covid-19 in unvaccinated people in this first period of the pandemic have ranged from mild/asymptomatic symptoms to severe disease and mortality. Thus, the most frequently reported initial signs or symptoms in the first 12 US patients confirmed with COVID-19 from January 20 to February 5, 2020, were cough and fever, during the course of the disease reported cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting [32].
While a wide range of symptoms can accompany COVID-19, the CDC found that the vast majority of patients exhibited one of three symptoms: fever, cough, and shortness of breath. In a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study involving 164 people in 16 states who had confirmed cases of coronavirus between January 14 and April 4, 2020, researchers found that 96% of patients had a fever, cough, or shortness of breath. About 45% had all three symptoms. The most frequent symptom was cough (84%) followed by fever (80%). COVID-19 patients also showed other symptoms, including chills, muscle pain, headache, fatigue, and digestive problems such as nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, or diarrhea. Approximately half of the patients reported one or more gastrointestinal symptoms; among these, diarrhea was reported more frequently (38%) and vomiting less frequently (13%) (32, 33).
In a small case series in Japan from 13 to 25 February 2020, 83% had fever, 33% had cough, and 33% had gastrointestinal symptoms. All patients exhibited bilateral ground-glass opacities on computed tomography [34]. In another study of cases of 2019-nCoV in Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, China, from Jan 1 to Jan 20, 2020, patients had fever in 83%, cough 82%, shortness of breath 31%, muscle ache 11%, confusion 9%, headache 8%, sore throat 5%, rhinorrhoea 4%, chest pain 2%, diarrhoea 2%, and nausea and vomiting 1%. According to imaging examination, 75% patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14% patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and 1% had pneumothorax [35]. In one study from Wuhan, China, examining >1000 cases of covid-19, the predominant symptoms were fever and dry cough, with 80%. Other studies noted that gastrointestinal symptoms, such as diarrhea (2%–10.1%) and nausea and vomiting (1%–3.6%), were present in a nontrivial proportion of patients. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients presented initially with those atypical gastrointestinal symptoms. It was reported that anosmia and dysgeusia were early symptoms associated with covid-19 (1). Overall, nearly 20% of patients with covid-19 in China developed severe pneumonia [36].
Other studies for the 2020 period showed that fever occurred in 83-88%, Dry cough in 46-82%, Malaise and fatigue in 11-70%, Body aches and myalgias in 11-44%, Pharyngitis/pharyngalgia in 5-17%, Loss of appetite in 40-50%, Diarrhea in 2-15%, Nausea and vomiting in 1-10%, Headache 6-12%, Dizziness 9%, and Confusion 9% (1). Others reports have identified a variety of symptoms associated with covid-19, that include fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, loss of taste or smell, sore throat, stuffy or runny nose, nausea or vomiting and diarrhea, and others such as malaise [37-40]. And it was emphasized that taste and smell disorders and diarrhea were important markers in COVID-19 infection [41].
In this sense, the presence of anosmia, ageusia, fever, new persistent cough, chills, loss of appetite, and muscle pain were reported to be the seven symptoms that (out of a total of 26) best predict a positive test result for SARS CoV infection in adults, based on a British analysis of more than 1 million participants studied between June 2020 and January 2021 [42, 43]. An investigation, led by Imperial College London, analyzed data on symptoms reported by 78,299 people in 190 countries between April and September 2020. Of these, 64,699 were symptomatic. Responders who tested positive were more likely to report joint pain, loss of appetite, and loss of smell and taste [11]. Along these same lines, we report in a study in the same population of the GP consultation that this study, from March 9 to April 3, 2020, where covid-19 diagnostic test was not initially performed, that patients who should be considered as probable covid-19 were those who presented fever, dyspnea, diarrhea, nausea / vomiting, or physical signs of pneumonia, with long duration of symptoms [29].
2. Symptoms in COVID-19 breakthrough infections in vaccinated people in 2022
Since the start of the pandemic, general practitioners (GPs) have been familiar with the hallmark symptoms of contagion, including loss of taste or smell, fever, cough, shortness of breath, and fatigue. But what happens now, more than a year later, when in many countries more than half the population is vaccinated? Have the symptoms changed since delta and omicron are the most common variants in some countries? There are few data in this regard and much remains to be clarified [44]. So far we know that the majority of patients with covid-19 after vaccination usually have mild disease or even remain asymptomatic [45]. The symptoms with which covid-19 manifested at the beginning of the pandemic are no longer the same as in the vaccinated population. The symptoms of COVID-19 change for those vaccinated: fever is no longer the most permanent symptom, neither is the loss of taste and smell, and rhinorrhea, sore throat or dry cough and headache appear as very frequent symptoms in people with the vaccine [46].
Generally speaking, it would appear that vaccinated people who contract covid-19 and experience symptoms are prone to them in the same way that an unvaccinated person might experience them but probably with different severity. So, while a person who is not vaccinated may experience a very bad headache, a very severe sore throat, or very serious gastrointestinal problems, those same symptoms would be less severe in a person who is vaccinated [47]. In an observational study evaluating reported clinical symptoms of 63,000 confirmed cases of covid-19 over two time periods (June to November 2021 when the Delta variant predominated and December 2021 to January 2022 when Omicron predominated), showed that the most frequent were nasal congestion (77-82%), headache (75-78%), sneezing (63-71%) and sore throat (61-71%) (48).
In a study conducted in Israel, of 1,497 fully vaccinated health workers, 39 (3%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, of which 69% were tested solely for having had contact with someone positive. Of the 39 patients who had covid-19 after vaccination, 33% remained asymptomatic and among the symptomatic, 36% reported nasal congestion, 28% myalgia, 28% loss of smell or dysgeusia, and 21
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
