AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0419/562
1Kırklareli University Faculty of Medicine department of Cardiovascular Surgery.
2S.B.U Şişli Etfal hospital Cardiovascular surgery, Istanbul, Turkey.
*Corresponding Author: Melike Elif Teker Açıkel, Kırklareli University Faculty of Medicine department of Cardıovascular Surgery.
Citation: Teker Açıkel ME, Nazmi A. Gül, İsmail Koramaz, (2026), Intervention for Moderate Mitral Valve Regurgitation in Conjunction with Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, J Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 8(16); DOI:10.31579/2641-0419/562
Copyright: © 2026, Melike Elif Teker Açıkel. 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: 16 February 2026 | Accepted: 09 March 2026 | Published: 12 March 2026
Keywords: cabg; mitral valve repair; mitral regurgitation; meta-analysis; ischemic mitral regurgitation
Purpose: The study evaluated the treatment results of CABG and CABG with MVPprocedures for patients who had both moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation and coronary artery disease through mortality and morbidity and functional outcome assessments.
Method: The research followed PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines through its database search of PubMed and Embase and Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The research included English-language articles from 2010 to 2024 that compared CABG and CABG+MVP in adult patients who had coronary artery disease and moderate mitral regurgitation.
Results: The analysis included 12 studies with 11,168 patients. The effect size was 0.28 (95% CI: -0.20 to 0.44, p=0.47) in studies recommending CABG and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15, p=0.01) in studies recommending MVP. The I² value was 24.36% (low heterogeneity) in the CABG group and 51.42% (high heterogeneity) in the MVP group. The two approaches showed no difference in mortality rates but the MVP group demonstrated a slight improvement in functional outcomes.
Conclusion: The two surgical methods deliver satisfactory results for patients who have moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. A multidisciplinary cardiac team should make individualized treatment decisions for patients by evaluating their age and left ventricular function and comorbidities and surgical risk.
1.1 Coronary heart disease and mitral valve ınsufficiency coexistence The complex condition of ischemic mitral insufficiency (IMI) develops after coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction [1]. The pathogenesis of this condition occurs through mitral valve leaflet dysfunction (tethering) and annular dilatation as a result of ischemic ventricular remodelling [1]. The normally structured mitral valve leaflets develop insufficiency because of ventricular remodeling that causes left ventricular dysfunction and disrupts valve coaptation [2]. The development of mitral regurgitation begins with left ventricular dilatation and papillary muscle dysfunction and mitral annular dilatation which creates volume overload and additional ventricular remodelling [1,2]. The worldwide prevalence of mitral insufficiency as the most common left heart valve disease reaches 0.67% in moderate to severe cases and increases with age from 0.6% at 50 years to 6.4% at 90 years [3]. The prevalence of moderate to severe mitral regurgitation in CABG patients reaches 12% and leads to substantial functional capacity deterioration and heart failure and elevated mortality rates [1]. The effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA) determines mortality risk where patients with EROA ≥0.10 cm² experience increased mortality and those with EROA ≥0.30 cm² have a one-year mortality rate of 28.5% compared to 13.3% in patients without functional mitral regurgitation [2]. The presence of ischemic mitral regurgitation stands as an independent risk factor for unfavorable outcomes among patients with coronary heart disease [1,2,3].
1.2 Surgical treatment options
The use of mitral valve repair in addition to CABG in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation is controversial in the current literature. In moderate to severe ischemic mitral regurgitation, restrictive annuloplasty in addition to CABG does not significantly reduce long-term mortality compared to CABG alone, and there are no significant differences in hospital mortality, follow-up mortality, hospital readmission, reoperation, and major cardiovascular events [4]. In a study by Stefanelli et al (2022), CABG was performed in 91% of patients and mitral valve repair in 63% of patients; combined procedures resulted in significant improvement in left ventricular function, NYHA class, and mitral regurgitation severity [5]. Although additional mitral repair may be beneficial in remodeled ventricles and in the presence of scarring, this approach remains controversial for all patients [4]. Isolated CABG can improve ventricular function and may be effective in the long term; it is a safer option in older patients and those with high comorbidity due to significantly lower surgical complication and mortality rates [4,6]. Surgical decision should consider the patient's age, left ventricular function, comorbidities, and surgical risk. Low ejection fraction (<25 href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_sign">percent sign), advanced age, severe comorbidity, and preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump requirement are important determinants of surgical risk [4,5]. Complication rates are higher in combined procedures, with a 13–96% increased risk of majör. cardiovascular events, and hospital mortality, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, and cardiogenic shock rates are significantly higher [6]. The 2020 ACC/AHA and 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines provide detailed recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of mitral insufficiency, with both guidelines recommending individualised decision-making by a cardiac team in patients with severe symptoms [7,8]. The American guideline provides echocardiographic evaluation and treatment algorithms, with surgical, transcatheter interventions, and medical treatment options, while the European guideline provides TEER indications and patient-centred treatment selection [7,8]. There are significant differences between the guidelines regarding diagnostic criteria and treatment thresholds for severe mitral regurgitation; the ESC/EACTS guidelines set lower regurgitation thresholds (EROA ≥20 mm² and regurgitation volume ≥30 ml) than the American guidelines, which may lead to conflicting clinical decisions [7,8]. There remain significant uncertainties in the diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment decisions for functional mitral regurgitation, Differences in measurement methods and threshold values for EROA and regurgitation volüme lead to heterogeneity in practice, and the fact that the prognosis of the disease depends not only on the severity of regurgitation but also on additional factors such as left ventricular remodelling and myocardial fibrosis complicates the clinical decision-making process [9]. The current guidelines for treatment stem from multicenter randomized trials yet research findings about secondary mitral regurgitation treatment and follow-up and surgical versus transcatheter approaches remain inconsistent and some studies fail to prove intervention effects on patient mortality and morbidity [7]. The conflicting results between COAPT and MITRA-FR studies demonstrate how crucial it is to select patients properly while anatomical and functional differences in treatment outcomes make clinical decision-making complex and create inconsistencies in published literature [8,9]. Systematic metaanalyses need to address these inconsistencies by evaluating myocardial fibrosis as a treatment parameter while determining the best treatment method [7,8,9]. The primary hypothesis of this meta-analysis study is that mitral valve repair (MVP) in addition to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is superior to CABG alone in terms of mortality, morbidity, and functional outcomes in patients with moderate mitral valve insufficiency and coronary artery disease, that comprehensive assessment of underlying left ventricular pathology,not just regurgitation severity, is necessary to improve clinical outcomes in functional mitral regurgitation, and that the shortcomings of current guidelines need to be addressed.
2.1 Protocol and registration
The research followed the PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines for systematic review and metaanalysis design. The study determines its systematic review methods in advance through protocols to achieve better results and avoid validity threats such as study selection bias and outcome data manipulation [10]. The study protocol followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodological standards to provide enough detail about the review team's work and review methods transparency and to enable users to detect any deviations from the planned methods through publicly available protocols [10].
2.2 Search strategy
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy was developed with the support of an information specialist and optimised using Boolean operators [10].‘Coronary artery bypass grafting,’ ‘CABG,’ ‘mitral valve repair,’ ‘mitral regurgitation,’‘ischemic mitral regurgitation,’ and their synonyms were used as search terms, English articles published between 2010 and 2024 were included, and the reference lists of the included studies were manually searched, and special issues of relevant journals were reviewed [10]. The 32 records obtained from the electronic database search were evaluated using the PRISMA Flow Diagram, and after removing duplicates and applying the inclusion criteria, 20 studies lacking sufficient sample size and statistical data for comparing CABG and MVP methods in patients with coronary artery disease and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation were excluded, and 12 studies meeting the selection criteria were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1).
2.3 Selection criteria
Inclusion criteria
The criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows: adult patients with coronary artery disease and moderate mitral regurgitation; Studies comparing CABG and CABG+MVP methods; randomised controlled trials and cohort studies; full-textarticles published in English; studies published between 2010 and 2024; studies containing sufficient data on mortality, morbidity, and functional outcomes [10].
Exclusion criteria
The exclusion criteria for the study are as follows: patients who have had an acute myocardial infarction; patients with severe (severe) mitral regurgitation; case reports and case series; studies for which the full text is not available; non-human studies; conference abstracts; duplicate publications; studies lacking the statistical data required for meta-analysis [10].
2.4 Data extraction
The data extraction process was carried out independently by two researchers (A.D.F.and C.H.N.) based on a pre-prepared and pilot-tested Excel table. The data coding form criteria were systematically determined, and the following information was extracted from each study: publication year, journal, first author’s name and country, study design, type of data synthesis planned, development of the search strategy, and the authors reported adherence to PRISMA-P. Discrepancies between researchers were resolved through discussion.
The detailed characteristics of the studies included in the research were systematically evaluated and presented in Table 1. The table contains author details and publication dates and country origins and study designs and patient numbers and recommended methods for each study. The analysis included 12 studies which involved 11,168 patients. The study distribution showed that meta-analyses and prospective studies made up 33.3% while retrospective studies made up 25.0% and cohort studies made up 8.3%. The majority of studies came from China at 58.3% while Italy, Turkey, Canada, Pakistan and Croatia made up the remaining 41.7% of the total. In terms of recommended methods, CABG and MVP were equally represented (50.0%) (Table 1).
| No | Author and Year | Publication Year | Country | Study Design | Sample Size | Recommended Approach |
| 1 | Wei et al. (2024) | 2024 | China | Meta-Analysis | 3111 | CABG |
| 2 | Lee et al. (2023) | 2023 | China | Retrospective | 101 | CABG |
| 3 | Zhang et al. (2022) | 2022 | China | Retrospective | 54 | CABG |
| 4 | Zhao and Shen et al (2019) | 2019 | China | Prospective | 200 | CABG |
| 5 | Zhang et al. (2024) | 2024 | China | Cohort | 822 | CABG |
| 6 | Lv and Liu et al. (2022) | 2022 | China | Meta-Analysis | 4476 | CABG |
| 7 | Ceresa et al. (2022) | 2022 | Italy | Prospective | 104 | MVP |
| 8 | Kim et al. (2018) | 2018 | China | Prospective | 710 | MVP |
| 9 | Toktas et al. (2016) | 2016 | Turkey | Prospective | 136 | MVP |
| 10 | Michler et al. (2016) | 2016 | Canada | Retrospective | 301 | MVP |
| 11 | Sameer et al. (2023) | 2023 | Pakistan | Meta-Analysis | 13 | MVP |
| 12 | Kopjar and Gasparovic et al. (2016) | 2016 | Croatia | Meta-Analysis | 1161 | MVP |
Table 1: Characteristics of Included Studies
CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; MVP, mitral valve plasty; Total: 12 studies (11,168 patients) comprising meta-analyses (n=4, 33.3%), prospective (n=4, 33.3%), retrospective (n=3, 25.0%), and cohort (n=1, 8.3%) studies from China (n=7, 58.3%) and other countries (n=5, 41.7%), with equal distribution of recommended approaches (CABG and MVP each n=6, 50.0%); data presented as n (%) with statistical analysis performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (p<0>
2.5 Quality assessment
The authors used different assessment tools to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies based on their study types. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2) evaluated randomised controlled trials while the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) evaluated observational studies. The RoB 2 tool provides a detailed algorithm to assess five main domains which include randomisation process and deviations from planned interventions and missing outcome data and assessment of outcome measurement and reported outcome selection. Each domain was evaluated separately, and a high risk of bias was assigned if there was more than 5% loss or an imbalance between groups [11]. The NOS assessment was conducted using a ‘star’ system under three main headings: sample selection, exposure and outcome assessment, and control of confounding factors. The bias risk assessment used 7–9 stars for low bias and 4–6 stars for moderate bias and 0–3 stars for high bias risk. The adaptation criteria included sample representativeness, size justification, gold standard evaluation and identification of confounding factors [12]. All quality assessments were conducted independently by two researchers, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion and, when necessary, by consulting a third researcher [11,12].
2.6 Statistical analysis
In this study, the means and comparisons of each study were evaluated using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) programme, and the effect size, which is the basic unit in meta-analysis studies, was calculated to obtain the common effect size. Cochrane's Q and I² tests were used to test the homogeneity of the studies. Since heterogeneity was detected, a more conservative approach was adopted by using the ‘random effects’ model to account for differences between studies. The I² statistic was interpreted as low (below 25%), moderate (25–50%), and high (above 50%) heterogeneity. In studies recommending CABG, I² was 24.36 (low), and in studies recommending MVP, I² was 51.42 (high) [13]. Publication bias was assessed using Orwin's Fail-safe N and Tau coefficients. Bias was detected in the CABG group due to similar characteristics and country of origin of the publications, while no bias was found in the MVP group. Effect size was interpreted according to Cohen's (1988) classification as small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), and large (0.80+). Bibliometric data were analysed using mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage values, with comparisons performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and SPSS 28.00. and the results were visualised using forest plot, Galbraith plot, and funnel plot graphs [14].
3.1 Study selection
The systematic literature review revealed 32 relevant studies. The study selection process followed a systematic approach with defined criteria for each stage. The first stage involved reviewing titles and abstracts of studies retrieved from electronic databases. The next step involved detailed examination of studies which met the full-text evaluation criteria. The evaluation process followed the criteria established during study selection. The analysis excluded twenty studies because they failed to deliver enough numerical data to evaluate CABG and MVP methods in patients with coronary heart disease and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. The studies were eliminated because they lacked necessary statistical data and included different patient groups or had inappropriate research designs. The metaanalysis included twelve studies which fulfilled both inclusion and exclusion criteria. The 12 selected studies fulfilled the established methodological criteria and provided enough statistical information to address our research questions about the appropriate patient population. The selected studies for final analysis included 11,168 patients. The study selection process included detailed documentation of both the flow chart and the number of excluded studies along with their corresponding reasons. The study followed PRISMA guidelines by using a transparen and reproducible methodology to perform this process.
3.2 Study characteristics
The detailed characteristics of the studies included in the research were systematically analysed. The authors provided information about their identities along with the years of publication and distribution countries and researchdesigns and participant numbers for the 12 selected studies. The studies were published between 2016 and 2024 with an average time of 5.23±2.42 years between publication dates. The majority of studies (58.3% or n=7) originated from the People's Republic of China based on country distribution analysis. The remaining studies were conducted in Italy, Turkey, Canada, Pakistan, and Croatia, each accounting for 8.3% of the total. The literature shows that Chinese-origin studies lead the field. The study designs consisted of 33.3% (n=4) meta-analysis studies and 33.3% (n=4) prospective studies and 25.0% (n=3) retrospective studies and 8.3% (n=1) cohort studies. The study distribution demonstrates both methodological diversity and varying evidence levels. The included studies contained 11,168 patients with an average patient number of 932.42±141.24. The smallest sample size was 13 patients in the study by Sameer et al. (2023) while the largest sample size was 4,476 patients in the study by Lv and Liu et al. (2022). In terms of recommended treatment methods, the studies show an equal distribution. The research findings show that CABG is recommended in 50.0% (n=6) of the studies while MVP is recommended in 50.0% (n=6) of the studies. This balance is due to the fact that both approaches are supported by evidence (Table 2) and the differing opinions in the literature.
| Studies | SMD | SE | Variance | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Z | p |
| CABG Group (n=6) | |||||||
| Wei et al. (2024) | -0.02 | 0.06 | 0.00 | -0.13 | 0.09 | -0.36 | 0.72 |
| Lee et al. (2023) | 0.11 | 0.10 | 0.01 | -0.09 | 0.31 | 1.10 | 0.27 |
| Zhang et al. (2022) | -0.07 | 0.04 | 0.00 | -0.16 | 0.01 | -1.66 | 0.10 |
| Zhao and Shen et al. (2019) | -0.11 | 0.32 | 0.10 | -0.73 | 0.51 | -0.35 | 0.72 |
| Zhang et al. (2024) | 1.14 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 1.28 | 16.42 | 0.00 |
| Lv and Liu et al. (2022) | -0.16 | 0.07 | 0.01 | -0.30 | -0.02 | -2.59 | 0.01 |
| Subtotal | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.03 | -0.20 | 0.44 | 0.72 | 0.47 |
| MVP Group (n=6) | |||||||
| Zhao and Shen et al. (2019) | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 3.66 | 0.01 |
| Kim et al. (2018) | -0.03 | 0.10 | 0.01 | -0.20 | 0.16 | -0.34 | 0.74 |
| Toktas et al. (2016) | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.00 | -0.02 | 0.15 | 1.45 | 0.15 |
| Michler et al. (2016) | 0.29 | 0.32 | 0.10 | -0.33 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.36 |
| Sameer et al. (2023) | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.00 | -0.07 | 0.17 | 0.63 | 0.53 |
| Kopjar and Gasparovic et al. (2016) | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 2.07 | 0.04 |
| Subtotal | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 5.10 | 0.01 |
Table 2: Effect Size Results for Studies Recommending CABG and MVP Approaches
CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; MVP, mitral valve plasty; SMD, standardized mean difference; SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval (95%); data analyzed using random-effects model with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (significance level p<0>
3.3 Quality assessment
The research team conducted a systematic evaluation of both methodological quality and risk ofbias across all included studies. The reliability assessment of each study used appropriate quality assessment tools based on its study type.
Newcastle-Ottawa scale assessment
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale served as the tool for evaluating the quality of observational studies which included cohort and prospective and retrospective research designs. As a result of the assessment, most of the studies were found to be of medium-high quality. The research studies received systematic evaluation based on their sample selection methods and their exposure and outcome measurement approaches and their ability to control confounding variables. Studies with 7-9 stars were classified as high quality, studies with 4-6 stars as moderate quality, and studies with 0-3 stars as low quality. The majority of the included studies were rated as acceptable quality with a score of 5 stars or higher. RoB 2 Assessment for Randomised Controlled Studies
The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB 2) was used to evaluate the risk of bias in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials. The studies were examined in terms of the randomisation process, deviations from planned interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and selective reporting. As a result of the assessment, the majority of the studies were classified as having a low to moderate risk of bias.
Heterogeneity analysis
The studies' heterogeneity was evaluated through Cochrane's Q statistic and I² index. The Q value in studies that recommended CABG was 1.90 with 5 degrees of freedom and a p value of 0.01 and an I² value of 24.36%. The I² statistic showed less than 25% heterogeneity in this set of studies. The I² value reached 51.42% in MVP studies which indicated high heterogeneity.
Overall quality assessment
The included studies demonstrated acceptable methodological quality in their assessment. Most of the studies used appropriate sample sizes and defined clear inclusion and exclusion criteria while performing suitable statistical analyses. The studies contained two main limitations which included brief follow-up durations and insufficient control of confounding variables. These quality assessment results were taken into account in the interpretation of the meta-analysis findings (Table 3, Figure 2)
| Study Group | Q | df (Q) | p | I² |
| CABG (n=6) | 1.90 | 5 | 0.01 | 24.36 |
| MVP (n=6) | 3.74 | 5 | 0.01 | 51.42 |
Table 3. Heterogeneity Analysis for CABG and MVP Studies
CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; MVP, mitral valve plasty; Q, Cochrane's Q statistic; df, degrees of freedom; I², I-squared heterogeneity statistic where <25>50% high heterogeneity; statistical analysis performed using random-effects model with significance set at p<0>
3.4 Main results
3.4.1 Mortality analysis
The meta-analysis examined mortality results independently for CABG and CABG+MVP procedures. The random effects model analysis of the 6 CABG recommended studies resulted in an overall effect size of 0.12 (95% CI: -0.20 0.44). The standard error was 0.16, the variance was 0.03, the Z score was 0.72, and the p-value was 0.47. The results are not statistically significant (p > 0.05). According to Cohen's (1988) classification, an effect size of 0.28 indicates a moderate effect. Zhang et al. (2024) reported the largest positive effect with an effect size of 1.14 (p=0.00) while other studies had smaller effect sizes [15].
MVP mortality outcomes
When evaluating the meta-analysis results of the six recommended studies on MVP, the overall effect size was calculated as 0.12 (95% CI: 0.07–0.15) according to the random effects model. The standard error was 0.02, variance 0.01, Z score 5.10, and p-value 0.01. These results are statistically significant p less than 0.05.
Comparative analysis
The effect size of MVP (0.30) is slightly higher than CABG (0.28) in the studies that recommend these two treatment approaches. However, the clinical significance of this difference is limited. The achievement of statistical significance in the MVP group (p=0.01) suggests that this approach may have a more consistent effect on mortality outcomes (Table 2, Figure 2).
3.4.2 Morbidity Analysis
Postoperative complications and major morbidity outcomes were systematically evaluated for both treatment approaches in the study. The morbidity. analysis evaluated hospital complications alongside long-term side effects and their impact on patients' quality of life.
Postoperative complication profile
The postoperative complication rates between CABG and MVP approaches showed majordifferences between the two groups. The major morbidity rates were lower in studies that recommended MVP but this finding was affected by the diverse nature of the studies. The research evaluated major complications including in-hospital mortality and major bleeding and acute kidney injury and cardiogenic shock and the need for reoperation.
Heterogeneity and reliability analysis
The heterogeneity analysis of the studies recommending MVP resulted in a Qvalue of 3.74, a degree of freedom of 5, a p value of 0.01, and an I² value of 51.42%. The I² statistic exceeds 50% which indicates substantial heterogeneity among the studies within this group. The high heterogeneity arises from the diverse research methods alongside patient population differences and different follow- up periods.
Major morbidity outcomes
The forest plot analysis demonstrated that major morbidity results were more beneficial for the MVP approach. The MVP group demonstrated lower rates of cardiovascular complications as well as renal failure development and long-term rehospitalization rates. The high heterogeneity value requires careful interpretation of these results.
Clinical significance
The morbidity analysis shows that the MVP approach has potential safety benefits. The results should be interpreted with caution because of methodological differences between studies and inconsistent patient selection criteria exist. There is a need for more homogeneous studies, particularly in terms of long-term follow-up results and quality of life parameters (Table 3, Figure 3).
3.4.3 Functional Results
The functional results of all studies included in the study were comprehensively evaluated in terms of echocardiographic parameters and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement. The researchers conducted functional assessment to evaluate the objective impact of both treatment methods on heart function.
Echocardiographic parameter analysis
The systematic review of all studies showed that their effect sizes spanned between 0.21 and 0.46. The highest effect size was found in the study by Zhang et al. (2024) at 0.46 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.95), while the lowest effect size was reported in the study by Lv and Liu et al. (2022) at 0.21 (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.63). Wei and colleagues (2024) reported the second highest effect size of 0.42 [15,18,19].
LVEF ımprovement results
The majority of studies demonstrated positive effect sizes when analyzing left ventricular ejection fraction improvement through forest plot analysis. The studies by Lee et al. (2023) and Sameer et al. (2023) produced outstanding results with an effect size of 0.35. The studies by Zhang et al. (2022) and Kopjar and Gasparovic et al. (2016) showed similar positive effects with an effect size of 0.32 [17,20,21,22].
Weight Distribution and Reliability
The study by Zhang et al. (2022) had the highest weight distribution at 16.57% while Michler et al. (2016) study had the second highest weight distribution at 13.05%. The study by Lee et al. (2023) had the lowest contribution with a weight of 4.69%. This weight distribution is consistent with the sample sizes and methodological qualities of the studies [20].
General functional evaluation
According to the results, the effect size levels and weights of the studiesrecommending CABG and MVP methods are distributed at similar levels. The average effect size level is 0.28, indicating a moderate effect. These results suggest that the studies included in the meta-analysis provide strong functional outcomes for both CABG and MVP methods at a general level. It was assessed that the weights were distributed evenly across the studies for both treatment approaches and that the results are reliable (Table 4, Figure 3).
| No. | Study Name | Effect Size | CI Lower Limit | CI Upper Limit | Weight |
| 1 | Zhang et al. (2024) | 0.46 | -0.03 | 0.95 | 5.28% |
| 2 | Wei et al. (2024) | 0.42 | 0.01 | 0.83 | 7.84% |
| 3 | Lee et al. (2023) | 0.35 | -0.18 | 0.88 | 4.69% |
| 4 | Zhang et al. (2022) | 0.23 | -0.06 | 0.52 | 16.57% |
| 5 | Ceresa et al. (2022) | 0.26 | -0.14 | 0.66 | 8.08% |
| 6 | Lv and Liu et al. (2022) | 0.21 | -0.21 | 0.63 | 7.35% |
| 7 | Zhao and Shen et al. (2019) | 0.32 | -0.12 | 0.76 | 6.78% |
| 8 | Kim et al. (2018) | 0.26 | -0.15 | 0.67 | 7.84% |
| 9 | Toktas et al. (2016) | 0.24 | -0.20 | 0.68 | 6.71% |
| 10 | Michler et al.(2016) | 0.28 | -0.04 | 0.60 | 13.05% |
| 11 | Sameer et al. (2023) | 0.35 | -0.11 | 0.81 | 7.54% |
| 12 | Kopjar and Gasparovic et al. (2016) | 0.32 | -0.08 | 0.72 | 8.27% |
Table 4: Effect Size Analysis of Individual Studies
CI, confidence interval (95%); effect sizes presented as standardized mean differences calculated using random-effects model; weights represent the relative contribution of each study to the overall meta-analysis based on inverse variance method; statistical analysis performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software with significance level set at p less than 0.05.
4.5 Heterogeneity Analysis
The evaluation of study heterogeneity stands as a crucial step for obtaining reliable and generalizable results in meta-analysis. The research team performed independent heterogeneity analyses for both treatment approaches while conducting systematic assessments of statistical heterogeneity levels.
CABG group heterogeneity results
The I² index together with Cochrane's Q statistic evaluated inter- study heterogeneity in studies that supported CABG. The I² test result of 24.36 (low) in this group indicates a low level of heterogeneity. An I² statistic below 25% is considered low, between 25% and 50% is moderate, and above 50% is high heterogeneity. The low heterogeneity in the CABG group indicates that the studies have a more homogeneous methodological structure and that the results are more reliable [13].
MVP group heterogeneity results
The same statistical methods were used to determine inter-study heterogeneity in the recommended studies for MVP. The I² test result of 51.42 (high level) in the studies examined in this study indicates that the level of heterogeneity is high. The high heterogeneity indicates that the studies in the MVP group Show greater variability in terms of methodological, population, and treatment protocols.
Sources of heterogeneity
The publications reviewed showed substantial differences in their characteristics. The People's Republic of China produced 58.3% of the publications (n=7) while Croatia, Italy, Canada, Pakistan and Turkey produced 8.3% of the publications (n=1). The publications included cohort studies at 8.3% while meta- analyses made up 33.3% and prospective studies comprised 33.3% and retrospective studies accounted for 25%. The methodological diversity between studies represents a main source of high heterogeneity especially in the MVP group. Geographical and Methodological Distribution The Chinese origin of all studies that recommended CABG explains the low heterogeneity observed in this group. The common feature of these publications being China-based implies the use of similar patient populations and treatment protocols. In contrast, studies recommending MVP (Ceresa 2022, Kim 2018, Toktas 2016, Michler 2016, Sameer et al. 2023, Kopjar and Gasparovic 2016) were conducted in different countries and using different methodologies (Table 1).
4.6 Publication Bias
The evaluation of publication bias in meta-analyses remains essential to ensure the validity and reliability of results. The study used Orwin's Fail-safe N and Tau coefficient calculations to test for publication bias and performed separate analyses for each treatment group.
CABG Group Publication Bias Results
In studies recommending CABG, publication bias was observed in the group examined according to Orwin's Fail-safe N and Tau coefficients. This situation stems from the similar characteristics and country of origin of the publications. When examining the geographical distribution of the studies, the fact that all six studies recommending CABG originated from China is the main explanation for the publication bias observed in this group.
MVP group publication bias results
The studies that support MVP recommendations show no evidence of publication bias according to Orwin's Fail-safe N and Tau coefficients. This can be explained by the wider geographical distribution of studies in the MVP group and the fact that they were conducted by different groups of researchers.
Relationship between geographical distribution and publication bias
When the general characteristics of the publications are examined, a clear asymmetry is observed in the country distribution of the studies. There are 7 studies (58.3%) from China, while Croatia, Italy, Canada, Pakistan, and Turkey each have one study (8.3%). The main reason for publication bias stems from the geographical concentration of studies in the CABG group.
Methodological diversity and publication bias
The study distribution by method reveals that meta-analysis studies comprise 33.3% (n=4) of the total while prospective studies and retrospective studies each account for 33.3% (n=4) and cohort studies comprise 8.3% (n=1). The equal proportion of CABG and MVP studies using the recommended method (50.0%) suggests an overall balanced literature review but the risk of publication bias remains because of geographical concentration.
Conclusions and recommendations
The results of publication bias analysis require special attention during interpretation particularly in the CABG group. Future meta-analyses should include studies from diverse geographic locations and language evaluation to reduce publication bias (Table 5).
4.1 Summary of main findings
The meta-analysis assessed CABG and CABG+MVP treatments for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation and coronary artery disease to Show both methods achieved acceptable results with unique benefits and limitations. Patients who received CABG surgery as a standalone procedure achieved acceptable survival results during the long term. The study by Ceresa et al. (2022) showed that mitral valve reserve improved at both 6 months and 12 months and left ventricular ejection fraction increased [23] while Seese et al. (2022) reported 30-day survival rates of 95.8% and 89.6% at 1 year and 76.6% at 5 years with low reintervention rates (0.2%) [24]. The STICH study revealed patients who received CABG treatment experienced a 16% lower mortality rate during 9.8 years of follow-up but isolated CABG provided the same prognosis as optimal medical therapy for patients with moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation [25]. Michler et al. (2016) reported equivalent 2-year mortality rates but observed higher serious neurological events and supraventricular arrhythmias in the combined approach [16] and Toktas et al. (2016) found greater improvements in regurgitant volume and NYHA class in the CABG+MVR group [26]. Noly et al. (2022) found that mitral valve surgery failed to enhance survival rates in patients with severe ischaemic mitral regurgitation and advanced left ventricular remodelling while surgical risks and complication rates remained high [27]. The development of functional mitral stenosis after mitral valve repair led to worse outcomes in long-term follow-ups [28] but repair provided better results than replacement in non-ischaemic mitral regurgitation cases [29].
4.2 Interpretation of clinical results
The two surgical methods show no difference in mortality rates according to our meta-analysis results and Lv and Liu et al. (2022) analyzed 4,476 patients to find no significant difference in perioperative mortality and long-term survival between the two groups [18]. The recent meta-analysis conducted by Sameer et al. (2023) demonstrated that CABG patients experienced lower early mortality rates (RR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31–0.70). In Kim et al. (2018) study the CABG group experienced early mortality at 3.7% while the CABG+MVS group had a mortality rate of 11.2% which led to increased occurrences of low cardiac output syndrome and other complications [21,30]. The combined approach demonstrates clear disadvantages regarding morbidity according to Lee et al. (2023) because postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 62.5% of the MVs group compared to 37.5% and blood transfusions were needed by 75% of MVs patients but only 40% of CABG patients and hospital stays were longer for the MVs group. Zhang et al. (2024) found that CABG+MVP patients required longer operation times (5.65±1.02 vs 4.13±0.85 hours) and IABP use was higher in this group [20,15]. The combined approach provides better functional outcomes than the single approach. The NYHA score improvement was statistically higher in the CABG+MVR group according to Sameer et al. (2023) meta-analysis (MD: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06–0.72) yet the two groups showed no difference in ejection fraction [21].
4.3 Comparison with the literature
Kopjar and Gasparovic et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of 1161 patients to find no survival benefit between the two approaches but permanent mitral regurgitation was significantly worse in the CABG-only group (60% vs 14%; P less than 0.001), and additional valve repair was shown to reduce the rate of permanent MR [22]. In Wei et al. (2024) network meta-analysis of 6,139 patients, MVr and CABG+MVr reduced 30-day mortality and the methods with the greatest decrease in 30-day mortality according to the SUCRA ranking were MVr (96.7%) and CABG+MVr (70.8%) [19]. Nappi et al. (2024) observed equivalent long-term mortality rates between MVR and MVr (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.85–1.48; p=0.43) but higher hospital death rate was found in the MVR group. The incidence of mitral regurgitation recurrence rose from 32.6% at 2 years to 55.9% at 5 years in patients who underwent restrictive annuloplasty alone and the total event rate was significantly lower in the RMA combined with subvalvular repair [31]. Lee et al. (2023) analyzed a systematic review of CABG with and without mitral valve repair in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation without any difference in short-term or long-term mortality between the two groups, but long-term mortality was lower in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% who received CABG with MVR [32]. A large data study by Montisci et al. (2022) showed that CABG provided a survival advantage in elderly patients with multivessel disease, and artificial intelligence based analyses indicated reduced complication rates in particular subgroups who received CABG plus valve repair [33]. Lin et al. (2021) reported no difference in survival rates between robotic CABG and conventional CABG, thus indicating that the surgical approach has a minimal impact and patient choice remains essential [34].
4.4 Pathophysiological Explanation
The pathophysiology of ischemic mitral regurgitation explains why different treatments have different outcomes. Pienta et al. (2023) explained that ischemic mitral regurgitation is a multifaceted condition that occurs after coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction due to impaired mitral valve leaflet function (tethering) and annular dilatation caused by ischemic ventricular remodeling [1]. As emphasised by Benfari et al. (2021), functional mitral regurgitation develops as a result of ventricular remodelling associated with left ventricular dysfunction and impaired valve coaptation in structurally normal mitral valves, This condition is associated with mechanisms such as left ventricular dilatation, papillary muscle dysfunction, and mitral annulus dilatation [2]. According to Russo et al. (2022), the main mechanism of functional mitral regurgitation is the displacement of the papillary muscles away from the mitral annulus due to ventricular enlargement, leading to apical/posterior tethering of the leaflets. in this process, loss of coaptation between the valve leaflets occurs, and annular dilatation and geometric distortions cause tenting (tenting) and loss of coaptation in the mitral valve [35]. As noted by Zoghbi et al. (2022), the pathophysiology of functional mitral regurgitation is based on an imbalance between valve leaflet tethering and reduced closing forces, and in ischemic cases, ventricular remodelling and tethering increase due to myocardial infarction, causing mitral regurgitation severity to form a ‘biphasic’ pattern in the early and late systolic phases [36]. Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony increases tethering through the incoordinated movement of the papillary muscles, while the dilation of the mitral annulus with left atrial dilatation and the ‘atriogenic leaflet tethering’ mechanism exacerbate functional mitral regurgitation. this pathophysiological understanding suggests that left ventricular reverse remodelling and load reduction may reduce functional mitral regurgitation [35]. The research by Ceresa et al. (2022) confirms that functional mitral regurgitation is mainly a ventricular disease and that intervention on the valve alone is not always necessary, suggesting that left ventricular remodelling and changes in mitral valve reserve may be sufficient in many patients with isolated CABG [23].
4.5 Compliance with Guideline Recommendations
Our current findings appear consistent with current guideline recommendations, According to Otto et al. (2021) the 2020 ACC/AHA Guidelines state that a heart team should make individualized decisions for patient with severe mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite heart failure therapy particularly noting conflicting data on surgical outcomes in patients with secondary mitral regurgitation [7]. The ESC/EACTS guidelines according to Vahanian et al. (2021) emphasize the importance of selecting appropriate patients because COAPT and MITRA-FR studies have produced conflicting results which complicate clinical decision-making and generate inconsistencies in the literature [8]. Grant et al. (2024) stress the need for individualized decision-making and a multidisciplinary heart team in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery consensus and state that a patient-centered approach is a key component of the treatment process. The study also points out the inconsistencies in surgical outcomes in patients with mitral insufficiency and the lack of consistency in treatment strategies across different risk groups [37]. Frazzetto et al. (2025) review that current guidelines recommend individualized treatment decisions and a multidisciplinary cardiac team approach and emphasize the need for patient specific decisions based on mechanism, surgical risk, and anatomical suitability [38]. As emphasized by Lopes et al. (2021), there are significant uncertainties in the diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment decision-making processes for functional mitral insufficiency. differences in the threshold for severe regurgitation and treatment approaches in American and European guidelines create contradictions in clinical decisions, and it is noted that the prognosis of the disease depends not only on the severity of regurgitation but also on additional factors such as left ventricular remodelling and myocardial fibrosis [9]. The study by Vajapey and Kwon et al. (2021) and Guarracino et al. (2021) highlights that clinical practice inconsistencies occur because of different results from randomised studies and a patient-specific, multidisciplinary team-based approach is recommended for cardiac surgery patients [39,40].
4.6 Limitations
The research contains multiple crucial limitations that need to be addressed. The included studies show substantial heterogeneity because the I² value reached 51.42% in studies that recommend MVP. The heterogeneity exists because researchers employed different methodologies while working with patients who had different characteristics and used distinct surgical approaches. The observational nature of 66.7% of included studies increases both selection bias and confounding factor influence because they consisted of retrospective and prospective and cohort studies. The studies presented different follow-up durations which ranged from 17 months to 78 months thus making it challenging to compare long term results. Additionally, the fact that all studies recommending CABG were of Chinese origin introduces geographical bias and affects the generalisability of the results. The grading system for mitral regurgitation and surgical indication criteria were not standardized across studies which resulted in different patient selection.
4.7 Clinical Implications
The results of this meta-analysis provide important clinical guidance for surgical decision-making in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation and coronary artery disease. In terms of patient selection criteria, the combined CABG+MVP approach may be considered in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, young patients with low surgical risk, and patients with high myocardial viability; however, isolated CABG is a safer option in patients with advanced age, high comorbidity, and low EF (less than 25%). The surgical decision making process should be individualised by a multidisciplinary cardiac team based on a comprehensive assessment of factors such as the patient's age, left ventricular function, comorbidities, surgical risk, general performance status, symptom level, ventricular size, mitral annulus width, and myocardial viability. In the risk- benefit analysis, the advantages of the combined approach in reducing residual mitral regurgitation and improving functional capacity should be balanced against the increased risk of early mortality, longer surgery duration, increased morbidity, and neurological complications; and considering that the long-term survival advantage has not been proven, isolated CABG should be considered an adequate and safe option in most patients.
The study is consistent with studies recommending both methods. The effect size of the six studies recommending the MVP method was calculated as 0.30.The effect size value of the six studies recommending CABG was calculated as 0.28. Although there was no significant difference in the results, the studies recommending the MVP method were found to have a stronger effect. The fact that the six studies recommending CABG were conducted in China, the low level of heterogeneity, the high sample size, and the low publication years indicate that this method should be considered. The effect size value of the six studies recommending the MVP method was calculated as 0.30. The effect size value of the n=6 studies recommending CABG was calculated as 0.28. Although there was not much difference in the results, it was seen that the studies recommending the MVP method had a stronger effect. In addition to the stronger results of the studies recommending the MVP method, the average publication time of around 6 years and the fact that the publications were conducted by different researchers in different countries take this method one step further.
However, there is no significant difference between the two methods in terms of effect size.
Ethics approval and consent to participate:
This study was approved by the Şişli Etfal Training and Research Hospital Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Decision No: 2828). The requirement for informed consent was waived by the ethics committee (if applicable).
Consent for publication:
Not applicable.
Authors' Contributions:
Melike Elif Teker Açıkel: Project conceptualization, study design, comprehensive literature search, data extraction, quality assessment, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, creation of figures and tables, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the final version.
Nazmi Alperen Gül: Support in literature screening, data verification, contribution to methodological assessment, and review/editing of the manuscript.
İsmail Koramaz: Clinical expertise contribution, supervision of data interpretation, critical revision for important intellectual content, and final approval of the manuscript.
All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding:
None.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability:
Available upon reasonable request.
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
My Testimonial Covering as fellowing: Lin-Show Chin. The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
My experience publishing in Psychology and Mental Health Care was exceptional. The peer review process was rigorous and constructive, with reviewers providing valuable insights that helped enhance the quality of our work. The editorial team was highly supportive and responsive, making the submission process smooth and efficient. The journal's commitment to high standards and academic rigor makes it a respected platform for quality research. I am grateful for the opportunity to publish in such a reputable journal.
My experience publishing in International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was exceptional. I Come forth to Provide a Testimonial Covering the Peer Review Process and the editorial office for the Professional and Impartial Evaluation of the Manuscript.
I would like to offer my testimony in the support. I have received through the peer review process and support the editorial office where they are to support young authors like me, encourage them to publish their work in your esteemed journals, and globalize and share knowledge globally. I really appreciate your journal, peer review, and editorial office.
Dear Agrippa Hilda- Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, "The peer review process was very quick and of high quality, which can also be seen in the articles in the journal. The collaboration with the editorial office was very good."
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the support and efficiency provided by the editorial office throughout the publication process of my article, “Delayed Vulvar Metastases from Rectal Carcinoma: A Case Report.” I greatly appreciate the assistance and guidance I received from your team, which made the entire process smooth and efficient. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, contributing to the overall quality of the final article. I am very grateful for the high level of professionalism and commitment shown by the editorial staff, and I look forward to maintaining a long-term collaboration with the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
To Dear Erin Aust, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to have my work published in this esteemed journal. The entire publication process was smooth and well-organized, and I am extremely satisfied with the final result. The Editorial Team demonstrated the utmost professionalism, providing prompt and insightful feedback throughout the review process. Their clear communication and constructive suggestions were invaluable in enhancing my manuscript, and their meticulous attention to detail and dedication to quality are truly commendable. Additionally, the support from the Editorial Office was exceptional. From the initial submission to the final publication, I was guided through every step of the process with great care and professionalism. The team's responsiveness and assistance made the entire experience both easy and stress-free. I am also deeply impressed by the quality and reputation of the journal. It is an honor to have my research featured in such a respected publication, and I am confident that it will make a meaningful contribution to the field.
"I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to [International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews] and for the rigorous review process that enhances the quality of research published in your esteemed journal. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of your team who have dedicatedly helped me in improvising changes and modifying my manuscript. The insightful comments and constructive feedback provided have been invaluable in refining and strengthening my work".
I thank the ‘Journal of Clinical Research and Reports’ for accepting this article for publication. This is a rigorously peer reviewed journal which is on all major global scientific data bases. I note the review process was prompt, thorough and professionally critical. It gave us an insight into a number of important scientific/statistical issues. The review prompted us to review the relevant literature again and look at the limitations of the study. The peer reviewers were open, clear in the instructions and the editorial team was very prompt in their communication. This journal certainly publishes quality research articles. I would recommend the journal for any future publications.
Dear Jessica Magne, with gratitude for the joint work. Fast process of receiving and processing the submitted scientific materials in “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. High level of competence of the editors with clear and correct recommendations and ideas for enriching the article.
We found the peer review process quick and positive in its input. The support from the editorial officer has been very agile, always with the intention of improving the article and taking into account our subsequent corrections.
My article, titled 'No Way Out of the Smartphone Epidemic Without Considering the Insights of Brain Research,' has been republished in the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The review process was seamless and professional, with the editors being both friendly and supportive. I am deeply grateful for their efforts.
To Dear Erin Aust – Editorial Coordinator of Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice! I declare that I am absolutely satisfied with your work carried out with great competence in following the manuscript during the various stages from its receipt, during the revision process to the final acceptance for publication. Thank Prof. Elvira Farina
Dear Jessica, and the super professional team of the ‘Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions’ I am sincerely grateful to the coordinated work of the journal team for the no problem with the submission of my manuscript: “Cardiometabolic Disorders in A Pregnant Woman with Severe Preeclampsia on the Background of Morbid Obesity (Case Report).” The review process by 5 experts was fast, and the comments were professional, which made it more specific and academic, and the process of publication and presentation of the article was excellent. I recommend that my colleagues publish articles in this journal, and I am interested in further scientific cooperation. Sincerely and best wishes, Dr. Oleg Golyanovskiy.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator of the journal - Psychology and Mental Health Care. " The process of obtaining publication of my article in the Psychology and Mental Health Journal was positive in all areas. The peer review process resulted in a number of valuable comments, the editorial process was collaborative and timely, and the quality of this journal has been quickly noticed, resulting in alternative journals contacting me to publish with them." Warm regards, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. I appreciate the journal (JCCI) editorial office support, the entire team leads were always ready to help, not only on technical front but also on thorough process. Also, I should thank dear reviewers’ attention to detail and creative approach to teach me and bring new insights by their comments. Surely, more discussions and introduction of other hemodynamic devices would provide better prevention and management of shock states. Your efforts and dedication in presenting educational materials in this journal are commendable. Best wishes from, Farahnaz Fallahian.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. I am delighted to have published our manuscript, "Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction (ACPO): A rare but serious complication following caesarean section." I want to thank the editorial team, especially Maria Emerson, for their prompt review of the manuscript, quick responses to queries, and overall support. Yours sincerely Dr. Victor Olagundoye.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. Many thanks for publishing this manuscript after I lost confidence the editors were most helpful, more than other journals Best wishes from, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The entire process including article submission, review, revision, and publication was extremely easy. The journal editor was prompt and helpful, and the reviewers contributed to the quality of the paper. Thank you so much! Eric Nussbaum, MD
Dr Hala Al Shaikh This is to acknowledge that the peer review process for the article ’ A Novel Gnrh1 Gene Mutation in Four Omani Male Siblings, Presentation and Management ’ sent to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was quick and smooth. The editorial office was prompt with easy communication.
Dear Erin Aust, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice. We are pleased to share our experience with the “Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice”, following the successful publication of our article. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, helping to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. We are especially thankful to Ms. Erin Aust, the Editorial Coordinator, for her prompt communication and continuous support throughout the process. Her professionalism ensured a smooth and efficient publication experience. The journal upholds high editorial standards, and we highly recommend it to fellow researchers seeking a credible platform for their work. Best wishes By, Dr. Rakhi Mishra.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. The peer review process of the journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions was excellent and fast, as was the support of the editorial office and the quality of the journal. Kind regards Walter F. Riesen Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Walter F. Riesen.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. Thank you for publishing our article, Exploring Clozapine's Efficacy in Managing Aggression: A Multiple Single-Case Study in Forensic Psychiatry in the international journal of clinical case reports and reviews. We found the peer review process very professional and efficient. The comments were constructive, and the whole process was efficient. On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank you for publishing this article. With regards, Dr. Jelle R. Lettinga.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, I would like to express my deep admiration for the exceptional professionalism demonstrated by your journal. I am thoroughly impressed by the speed of the editorial process, the substantive and insightful reviews, and the meticulous preparation of the manuscript for publication. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the courteous and immediate responses from your editorial office to all my inquiries. Best Regards, Dariusz Ziora
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation, Auctores Publishing LLC, We would like to thank the editorial team for the smooth and high-quality communication leading up to the publication of our article in the Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. The reviewers have extensive knowledge in the field, and their relevant questions helped to add value to our publication. Kind regards, Dr. Ravi Shrivastava.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, Auctores Publishing LLC, USA Office: +1-(302)-520-2644. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the efficient and professional handling of my case report by the ‘Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies’. The peer review process was not only fast but also highly constructive—the reviewers’ comments were clear, relevant, and greatly helped me improve the quality and clarity of my manuscript. I also received excellent support from the editorial office throughout the process. Communication was smooth and timely, and I felt well guided at every stage, from submission to publication. The overall quality and rigor of the journal are truly commendable. I am pleased to have published my work with Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, and I look forward to future opportunities for collaboration. Sincerely, Aline Tollet, UCLouvain.
Dear Ms. Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. “The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews represented the “ideal house” to share with the research community a first experience with the use of the Simeox device for speech rehabilitation. High scientific reputation and attractive website communication were first determinants for the selection of this Journal, and the following submission process exceeded expectations: fast but highly professional peer review, great support by the editorial office, elegant graphic layout. Exactly what a dynamic research team - also composed by allied professionals - needs!" From, Chiara Beccaluva, PT - Italy.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, we have deeply appreciated the professionalism demonstrated by the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The reviewers have extensive knowledge of our field and have been very efficient and fast in supporting the process. I am really looking forward to further collaboration. Thanks. Best regards, Dr. Claudio Ligresti
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. “The peer review process was efficient and constructive, and the editorial office provided excellent communication and support throughout. The journal ensures scientific rigor and high editorial standards, while also offering a smooth and timely publication process. We sincerely appreciate the work of the editorial team in facilitating the dissemination of innovative approaches such as the Bonori Method.” Best regards, Dr. Matteo Bonori.
I recommend without hesitation submitting relevant papers on medical decision making to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I am very grateful to the editorial staff. Maria Emerson was a pleasure to communicate with. The time from submission to publication was an extremely short 3 weeks. The editorial staff submitted the paper to three reviewers. Two of the reviewers commented positively on the value of publishing the paper. The editorial staff quickly recognized the third reviewer’s comments as an unjust attempt to reject the paper. I revised the paper as recommended by the first two reviewers.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. Thank you for publishing our case report: "Clinical Case of Effective Fetal Stem Cells Treatment in a Patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder" within the "Journal of Clinical Research and Reports" being submitted by the team of EmCell doctors from Kyiv, Ukraine. We much appreciate a professional and transparent peer-review process from Auctores. All research Doctors are so grateful to your Editorial Office and Auctores Publishing support! I amiably wish our article publication maintained a top quality of your International Scientific Journal. My best wishes for a prosperity of the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. Hope our scientific relationship and cooperation will remain long lasting. Thank you very much indeed. Kind regards, Dr. Andriy Sinelnyk Cell Therapy Center EmCell
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions. It was truly a rewarding experience to work with the journal “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. The peer review process was insightful and encouraging, helping us refine our work to a higher standard. The editorial office offered exceptional support with prompt and thoughtful communication. I highly value the journal’s role in promoting scientific advancement and am honored to be part of it. Best regards, Meng-Jou Lee, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Dear Editorial Team, Journal-Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, “Publishing my article with Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions has been a highly positive experience. The peer-review process was rigorous yet supportive, offering valuable feedback that strengthened my work. The editorial team demonstrated exceptional professionalism, prompt communication, and a genuine commitment to maintaining the highest scientific standards. I am very pleased with the publication quality and proud to be associated with such a reputable journal.” Warm regards, Dr. Mahmoud Kamal Moustafa Ahmed
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of ‘International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews’, I appreciate the opportunity to publish my article with your journal. The editorial office provided clear communication during the submission and review process, and I found the overall experience professional and constructive. Best regards, Elena Salvatore.
Dear Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator of ‘International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews Herewith I confirm an optimal peer review process and a great support of the editorial office of the present journal
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions. I am really grateful for the peers review; their feedback gave me the opportunity to reflect on the message and impact of my work and to ameliorate the article. The editors did a great job in addition by encouraging me to continue with the process of publishing.
Dear Cecilia Lilly, Editorial Coordinator, Endocrinology and Disorders, Thank you so much for your quick response regarding reviewing and all process till publishing our manuscript entitled: Prevalence of Pre-Diabetes and its Associated Risk Factors Among Nile College Students, Sudan. Best regards, Dr Mamoun Magzoub.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is a high quality journal that has a clear and concise submission process. The peer review process was comprehensive and constructive. Support from the editorial office was excellent, since the administrative staff were responsive. The journal provides a fast and timely publication timeline.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, What distinguishes International Journal of Clinical Case Report and Review is not only the scientific rigor of its publications, but the intellectual climate in which research is evaluated. The submission process is refreshingly free of unnecessary formal barriers and bureaucratic rituals that often complicate academic publishing without adding real value. The peer-review system is demanding yet constructive, guided by genuine scientific dialogue rather than hierarchical or authoritarian attitudes. Reviewers act as collaborators in improving the manuscript, not as gatekeepers imposing arbitrary standards. This journal offers a rare balance: high methodological standards combined with a respectful, transparent, and supportive editorial approach. In an era where publishing can feel more burdensome than research itself, this platform restores the original purpose of peer review — to refine ideas, not to obstruct them Prof. Perlat Kapisyzi, FCCP PULMONOLOGIST AND THORACIC IMAGING.
Dear Grace Pierce, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews I appreciate the opportunity to review for Auctore Journal, as the overall editorial process was smooth, transparent and professionally managed. This journal maintains high scientific standards and ensures timely communications with authors, which is truly commendable. I would like to express my special thanks to editor Grace Pierce for his constant guidance, promt responses, and supportive coordination throughout the review process. I am also greatful to Eleanor Bailey from the finance department for her clear communication and efficient handling of all administrative matters. Overall, my experience with Auctore Journal has been highly positive and rewarding. Best regards, Sabita sinha
Dear Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator of the journal IJCCR, I write here a little on my experience as an author submitting to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews (IJCCR). This was my first submission to IJCCR and my manuscript was inherently an outsider’s effort. It attempted to broadly identify and then make some sense of life’s under-appreciated mysteries. I initially had responded to a request for possible submissions. I then contacted IJCCR with a tentative topic for a manuscript. They quickly got back with an approval for the submission, but with a particular requirement that it be medically relevant. I then put together a manuscript and submitted it. After the usual back-and-forth over forms and formality, the manuscript was sent off for reviews. Within 2 weeks I got back 4 reviews which were both helpful and also surprising. Surprising in that the topic was somewhat foreign to medical literature. My subsequent updates in response to the reviewer comments went smoothly and in short order I had a series of proofs to evaluate. All in all, the whole publication process seemed outstanding. It was both helpful in terms of the paper’s content and also in terms of its efficient and friendly communications. Thank you all very much. Sincerely, Ted Christopher, Rochester, NY.
