AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2642-973X/158
1Neurology Department, Faculty of Medicine - Mansoura University, Egypt.
2Anesthesia and Surgical Intensive Care Department, Faculty of Medicine - Mansoura University, Egypt.
*Corresponding Author: Osama Elshafei, Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura 355111, Egypt. E-mail: Osama_elshafei@mans.edu.eg
Citation: Osama Elshafei, Mohammed Gomaa, Eiad Arafa, Hossam Egila, Mohamed Khateeb, (2020), Pulsed Radiofrequency in Treatment of Classic Trigeminal Neuralgia (Prolonged Duration Versus Higher Voltage): A Randomized Control Study, J. Brain and Neurological Disorders, 3(1): DOI:10.31579/2642-973X/158
Copyright: © 2020, Osama Elshafei. 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: 01 October 2020 | Accepted: 07 October 2020 | Published: 13 December 2020
Keywords: trigeminal neuralgia; pulsed radiofrequency; neuropathic pain; non-destructive treatment; randomized controlled trial; pain modulation; neuromodulation; quality of life
Background: Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a chronic facial pain condition marked by severe, electric shock-like episodes. First-line pharmacological treatments like carbamazepine often lose effectiveness or cause side effects, prompting the need for alternative therapies. Pulsed radiofrequency treatment (PRFT) has emerged as a non-destructive, neuromodulatory intervention for TN, but optimization of its parameters remains under investigation.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged duration versus increased voltage settings in pulsed radiofrequency treatment for patients with classic trigeminal neuralgia.
Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving patients diagnosed with classic TN. Participants were divided into three groups: Group A received standard PRFT, Group B received PRFT with prolonged duration, and Group C received PRFT with increased voltage. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, pain amplitude, and quality of life were assessed pre- and post-intervention.
Results: All three groups showed significant reduction in pain. VAS scores decreased from 6.87 to 2.33 in Group A, 7.20 to 1.87 in Group B, and 6.93 to 2.40 in Group C. Group B exhibited the greatest sustained pain relief and the most notable improvement in quality of life (p < 0.05). No serious complications were reported in any group.
Conclusions: Prolonging the duration of PRFT offers greater therapeutic benefit over increasing voltage in managing classic TN. This approach optimizes pain control while minimizing adverse effects, supporting its use as a preferred neuromodulatory strategy in resistant TN cases.
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a debilitating neuropathic condition characterized by sudden, recurrent episodes of electric shock-like facial pain within one or more divisions of the trigeminal nerve. Despite being relatively rare—with an estimated prevalence of 12.6 to 27 per 100,000 individuals—it remains one of the most painful neurological disorders [1]. TN significantly impairs patients’ daily functioning, often leading to psychological distress and reduced quality of life. Pharmacological management, particularly with carbamazepine, is considered the first-line treatment. However, many patients eventually develop tolerance, experience severe side effects, or become refractory to medication, necessitating alternative therapeutic options [2].
Pulsed radiofrequency treatment (PRFT) has emerged as a minimally invasive, neuromodulatory intervention that avoids the tissue-destructive consequences associated with conventional radiofrequency thermocoagulation. PRFT modulates nerve function without causing axonal damage, offering sustained pain relief with fewer complications. Although PRFT is widely used, there is still no consensus regarding its optimal procedural parameters—particularly in terms of voltage intensity and duration of application [3].
Current literature lacks robust comparative trials exploring the effects of adjusting PRFT parameters, such as increasing voltage or extending the duration, on pain control and quality of life in patients with classic TN. Most studies focus either on a standard protocol or compare PRFT to other treatments, leaving a gap in evidence regarding internal optimization of the procedure itself [4, 5].
This study introduces a novel comparison between prolonged duration and increased voltage PRFT in a randomized controlled setting. It is among the first to directly evaluate these two parameter modifications side-by-side in the treatment of classic TN. By identifying the most effective and safe modulation strategy, this study seeks to refine PRFT protocols and enhance patient outcomes.
Accordingly, the aim of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged duration versus increased voltage pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of classic trigeminal neuralgia.
Patients And Methods
After approval from the Institutional Ethical Committee and obtaining informed written consent from all participants, this prospective study was conducted on 60 patients (subdivided into 3 groups each group 20 patient) diagnosed as classic TN according to the international headache society classification [6]. Patients were recruited from Neurology outpatient clinic in Mansoura university hospital from July 2016 to July 2018. All procedures adhered to the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria:
This study included adult patients aged between 18 and 70 years with a confirmed diagnosis of classic trigeminal neuralgia (TN) based on IHS (2013) criteria and normal MRI/MRA findings. Eligible patients had a VAS pain score ≥ 4 and were either refractory to at least three months of optimized medical therapy (including carbamazepine) or had developed intolerable drug side effects.
Exclusion criteria included symptomatic TN due to structural lesions (e.g., MS, tumors), local infection, bleeding disorders, prior invasive TN treatments, severe psychiatric illness, or substance abuse history, ensuring a homogenous sample with primary, medically resistant TN.
Study Procedures:
All participants underwent a standardized clinical protocol prior to and during the intervention. After comprehensive history taking, examination, and confirmation of diagnosis, patients were randomized into three groups using simple randomization:
• Group A (Standard PRF): Received pulsed radiofrequency at 45 volts for 120 seconds
• Group B (Prolonged Duration PRF): Received pulsed radiofrequency at 45 volts for 240 seconds
• Group C (Higher Voltage PRF): Received pulsed radiofrequency at 60 volts for 120 seconds
Pre-Procedure Evaluation
Each patient underwent the following assessments prior to intervention:
• Detailed medical and neurological history with emphasis on TN characteristics (site, frequency, severity, duration, trigger zones)
• Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scoring for baseline pain intensity
• Routine blood tests (CBC, coagulation profile)
• Neuroimaging (MRI brain) to exclude secondary TN (e.g., tumors, MS)
• Anesthetic fitness assessment for day-case procedure
Interventional Technique
The procedure was performed under strict aseptic conditions with patients lying supine and the head slightly extended. Continuous monitoring of ECG, pulse oximetry, and blood pressure was maintained throughout. Using C-arm fluoroscopy, the foramen ovale was visualized via a submental (caudo-cranial) view. The entry site was infiltrated with 1% lidocaine for local anesthesia.
A radiofrequency needle was inserted under tunnel vision technique toward the foramen ovale, with depth confirmed in alternating anteroposterior, lateral, and oblique views to avoid misplacement. Once the needle reached the target site near the Gasserian ganglion, sensory stimulation was initiated at 0.7V to elicit paresthesia in the target branch. If stimulation was non-specific or excessively diffuse, needle adjustments were made, followed by motor stimulation at double the sensory threshold to confirm absence of motor fiber involvement. After verifying proper placement, aspiration was performed to exclude blood or cerebrospinal fluid contamination before proceeding with PRF (Fig 1, 2).
Pulsed radiofrequency was administered using the NeuroTherm NT 1100 RF generator under different protocols for each group. Group A received two cycles of PRF at 45 volts for 2 minutes each, with a pulse width of 10 milliseconds and frequency of 4 Hz, and a cut-off needle tip temperature of 42°C. Group B received four cycles of the same parameters (i.e., 45V, 10ms, 4Hz, 42°C) to assess the effect of prolonged duration. Group C received two cycles at 60 volts, maintaining the same pulse width, frequency, and temperature, to evaluate the effect of increased voltage.
Figure 1: The needle entering the foramen ovale
Figure 2: Needle in position from lateral view
Post-Procedure Monitoring
Patients were observed immediately after the procedure and then followed up at 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, and 12 months. At each time point, pain severity was re-assessed using the VAS scale. Clinical and electrophysiological assessment of trigeminal nerve function, including blink reflex testing, was repeated to monitor for post-intervention deficits. Quality of life was re-evaluated using the RAND 36-Item Health Survey at 12 months post-procedure to determine long-term functional outcomes. Additionally, all patients were monitored for procedure-related complications, including local edema, sensory deficits, or facial muscle weakness.
Statistical analysis: The collected data were coded, processed and analyzed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) version 15 for Windows® (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA). Qualitative data was presented as number and percent. Comparison between groups was done by Chi-Square test. Quantitative data was presented as mean ± SD. Paired t-test was used for comparison within groups. Student t-test was used to compare between two groups. F-test (One Way Anova) was used to compare between more than two groups. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Case (1)
Female patient aged 39 years old presented with left trigeminal neuralgia in the distribution of the mandibular branch in the last 10 months. Neurological examination of the patient was within normal and VAS score was 7. Blink reflex was normal. MRI and MRA showed no evidence of secondary causes of TN or vascular contact (Fig. 3).
The patient received two cycles of PRF, each one for 2 minutes at 45 V (Fig. 4). VAS scores was followed up after 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1month, 6 months and 12 months and was 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3 respectively.
Quality of life questionnaire results was improved after the intervention as regard: role limitation due to emotional problem (from 33 to 67), energy (from 45 to 55), emotional wellbeing (from 48 to 60), social functioning (from 50 to 75), pain (from 45 to 90), general health (from 25 to 50) and the change since previous year was 75.
Figure 3: Normal MRI brain
Figure 4: Lateral view showing the needle in position
Demographic data
This study was conducted on 60 Patients with trigeminal neuralgia who met the inclusion criteria were recruited including 22 males (36.7%) and 38 females (63.3%). During the follow up period 10 patients were lost (1 patient died and the cause of death was not related to TN or the intervention, 4 patients refused to continue the follow up and 5 patients did not show up for follow up).
The mean age was 49.13 ± 6.81 years (minimal age was 37 years and the maximal age was 60 years). The mean pain duration was 31.37 ± 24.62 months (with minimal duration of 6 months and maximal duration of 120 months) (Table 1).
Number of patients | Minimum | Maximum | Mean ± SD | |
| Age (years) | 60 | 37 | 60 | 49.13 ± 6.81 |
| Pain Duration (months) | 60 | 6 | 120 | 31.37 ± 24.62 |
Table 1: Age and pain duration among all the patients
Pain was localized to the right side in 34 patients (56.7%) and to the left side in 26 patients (43.3%). Pain was distributed to V1 in 4 patients (6.67%), V2 in 8 patients (13.33%), V3 in 36 patients (60%), V2 and V3 in 10 patients (16.67%), V1, V2 and V3 in 2 patients (3.33%).
Patients were randomly distributed into three groups A, B and C. The mean age of the patients in group A was 49.2 ± 6.94 years, group B was
48.9 ± 5.88 years while group C was 49.3 ± 7.81 years with no statistically significant difference between them P=0.982. The mean pain duration from onset in group A was 39.8 ± 33.26 months, in group B was 28.3 ± 19.26 while in group C was 26 ± 17.04 months with no statistically significant difference between the three groups P=0.166 (Table 2).
Group A (n = 20) Mean ± SD | Group B (n = 20) Mean ± SD | Group C (n = 20) Mean ± SD |
F P | |
| Age(years) | 49.2± 6.94 | 48.9± 5.88 | 49.3± 7.81 | 0.018 0.982 |
| Duration(months) | 39.8 ± 33.26 | 28.3 ± 19.26 | 26 ± 17.04 | 1.856 0.166 |
Table 2: Age and pain duration among the three groups
Group A included 20 patients (4 males and 16 females), Group B included 20 patients (8 males and 12 females) and Group C included 20 patients (10 males and 10 females) with no statistically significant difference between the three groups P=0.134 (Table 3).
Group A (N = 20) | Group B (N = 20) | Group C (N = 20) |
2 P | |||||
| No | % | No | % | No | % | |||
| Male | 4 | 20% | 8 | 40% | 10 | 50% | 4.019 | 0.134 |
| Female | 16 | 80% | 12 | 60% | 10 | 50% | ||
Table 3: Sex distribution among the three groups’ patients
In group A, pain was localized to the right side in 12 patients (60%) and to the left side in 8 patients (40%). In group B, also pain was localized to the right side in 12 patients (60%) and to the left side in 8 patients (40%). In group C pain was localized to the right side in 10 patients (50%) and to the left side in 10 patients (50%) with no statistically significant difference between the groups P=0.762 (Table 4).
Group A (n = 20) | Group B (n = 20) | Group C (n = 20) |
2 P | |||||
| No | % | No | % | No | % | |||
| Right | 12 | 60% | 12 | 60% | 10 | 50% | 0.543 | 0.762 |
| Left | 8 | 40% | 8 | 40% | 10 | 50% | ||
Table 4: Affection of the right or left side among the three groups
In group A, Pain was distributed in 16 patients to V3 (80%), in 2 patients to V2 and V3 (10%) and in 2 patients to V2 (10%). In group B pain was distributed in 2 patients to V1 (10%), 2 patients to V2 (10%), 8 patients to V3 (40%), in 6 patients to V2 and V3 (30%) and in 2 patients to V1,
V2 and V3 (10%). While in group C, pain was distributed in 2 patients to V1 (10%), in 4 patients to V2 (20%), 12 patients to V3 (60%) and in 2 patients to V2 and V3 (10%). There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups as regard the affected side or the affected branch P=0.085 (Table 5).
V1 | Group A (n = 20) | Group B (n = 20) | Group C (n = 20) |
2 P | ||||
| No | % | No | % | No | % | |||
| 0 | 0% | 2 | 10% | 2 | 10% |
13.867 0.085 | ||
| V2 | 2 | 10% | 2 | 10% | 4 | 20% | ||
| V3 | 16 | 80% | 8 | 40% | 12 | 60% | ||
| V2,3 | 2 | 10% | 6 | 30% | 2 | 10% | ||
| V1,2,3 | 0 | 0% | 2 | 10% | 0 | 0% | ||
Table 5: Pain distribution among the three groups
Visual analogue pain scale scores before the intervention
Visual analogue scale mean score among all the patients was 7.3 ±1.23 with the maximal score was 10 and the minimal score was 5. Visual analogue scale mean score of group A was 6.9 ± 1.17, group B mean score was 7.5 ± 1.05 while group C was 7.5 ± 1.4 with no statistically significant difference between the three groups P=0.204 (Table 6).
GroupA Mean± SD | GroupB Mean± SD | GroupC Mean± SD | F P All patients Mean ± SD | ||
| VAS | 6.9 ± 1.17 | 7.5 ± 1.05 | 7.5 ± 1.4 | 1.632 0.204 | 7.3 ± 1.23 |
Table 6: Pre-intervention VAS scores
Visual analogue pain scale scores follow up after the intervention
In group A patient, with the total number of 20 patients completed the follow up, VAS mean score 1hour after the intervention was 1.1 ± 0.72 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 5.8 ± 1.2 (84.18%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. One day after the intervention VAS mean score was 2 ± 1.38 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.9 ± 1.48 (71.26%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
On follow up after 1 week, VAS mean score was 2.8 ± 1.2 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.1 ± 1.25 (59.52%) with highly statistically significance P= 0.000. After 1 month, VAS mean score of group A was 3 ± 1.3 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.1 ± 1.25 (57.78%) which was highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
After 6 months VAS mean score was 3.1 ± 1.41 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 3.8 ± 1.01 (56.09%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. After 12 months, VAS mean score was 4.2 ± 1.51 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 2.7 ± 1.22 (39.53%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000 (Table 7).
| No of patients | VAS Mean± SD |
P | Painamplitude reduction Mean ± SD | P | Painamplitude reduction Percentage | |
| 1hr | 20 | 1.1 ± 0.72 | 0.000 | 5.8 ±1.2 | 0.000 | 84.18% |
| 1d | 20 | 2 ± 1.38 | 0.000 | 4.9 ± 1.48 | 0.000 | 71.26% |
| 1w | 20 | 2.8 ±1.2 | 0.000 | 4.1 ± 1.25 | 0.000 | 59.52% |
| 1m | 20 | 3 ± 1.3 | 0.000 | 3.9 ± 1.25 | 0.000 | 57.78% |
| 6m | 20 | 3.1 ± 1.41 | 0.000 | 3.8 ± 1.01 | 0.000 | 56.09% |
| 12m | 20 | 4.2 ± 1.51 | 0.000 | 2.7 ± 1.22 | 0.000 | 39.53% |
Table 7: VAS and amplitude reduction among Group A patients
In group B patients, 1hour after the intervention (patients’ number =20), VAS mean score was 0.7 ± 0.66 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 6.8 ± 0.77 (91.3%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. VAS mean score 1 day after the intervention (patients’ number =20), was 1.6 ± 0.82 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 5.9 ± 0.55 (79.56%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
VAS mean score of group B patients after 1 week (patients’ number =18), was 2.22 ± 1.06 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 5.33 ± 0.84 (71.42%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. After 1
month (patients’ number =18), VAS mean score was 3 ± 0.97 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.56 ± 0.7 (60.98%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
After 6 months, VAS mean score of group B (patients’ number =16), was 2.88 ± 0.81 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.75 ± 1 (62.35%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. After 12 months VAS mean score of group B (patients’ number =16), was 3.88 ± 1.09 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 3.75 ± 0.86 (49.5%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000 (Table 8).
| No of patients | VAS Mean± SD |
P | Painamplitude reduction Mean ± SD |
P | Painamplitude reduction Percentage | |
| 1hr | 20 | 0.7 ± 0.66 | 0.000 | 6.8 ± 0.77 | 0.000 | 91.3% |
| 1d | 20 | 1.6 ± 0.82 | 0.000 | 5.9 ± 0.55 | 0.000 | 79.56% |
| 1w | 18 | 2.22± 1.06 | 0.000 | 5.33± 0.84 | 0.000 | 71.42% |
| 1m | 18 | 3 ± 0.97 | 0.000 | 4.56 ±0.7 | 0.000 | 60.89% |
| 6m | 16 | 2.88± 0.81 | 0.000 | 4.75 ±1 | 0.000 | 62.35% |
| 12m | 16 | 3.88± 1.09 | 0.000 | 3.75± 0.86 | 0.000 | 49.5% |
Table 8: VAS and amplitude reduction among group B patients
In group C patients, VAS mean score 1hour after the intervention (patients’ number =20) was 1.3 ± 0.66 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 6.2 ± 1.11 (83.32%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. VAS mean score 1 day after the intervention (patients’ number =20), was 2.3 ± 1.03 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 5.2 ± 0.89 (70.15%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
VAS mean score of group C patients 1 week after the intervention (patients’ number =18), was 2.5 ± 1.46 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 5.13 ± 0.96 (68.73%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
After 1 month (patients’ number =18), VAS mean score was 3.38 ± 1.86 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.25 ± 1 (57.65%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000.
After 6 months (patients’ number =14), VAS mean score of group C was 3.14 ± 1.51 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 4.14 ± 0.86 (57.35%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000. After 12 months (patients’ number =14), VAS mean score was 4.71 ± 1.98 with mean pain amplitude reduction of 2.57 ± 1.34 (36.58%) showing highly statistically significance P= 0.000 (Table 9)
| No of patients | VAS Mean ± SD |
P | Pain amplitude reduction Mean ± SD |
P | Pain amplitude reduction Percentage | |
| 1hr | 20 | 1.3 ± 0.66 | 0.000 | 6.2 ± 1.11 | 0.000 | 83.32% |
| 1d | 20 | 2.3 ± 1.03 | 0.000 | 5.2 ± 0.89 | 0.000 | 70.15% |
| 1w | 18 | 2.5 ± 1.46 | 0.000 | 5.13 ± 0.96 | 0.000 | 68.73% |
| 1m | 18 | 3.38 ± 1.86 | 0.000 | 4.25 ± 1 | 0.000 | 57.65% |
| 6m | 14 | 3.14 ± 1.51 | 0.000 | 4.14 ± 0.86 | 0.000 | 57.35% |
| 12m | 14 | 4.71 ± 1.98 | 0.000 | 2.57 ± 1.34 | 0.000 | 36.58% |
Table 9: VAS and amplitude reduction among group C patients
By comparing the VAS scores between the three groups 1hour after the intervention, Group B showed the lower VAS score mean (0.7 ± 0.66) with statistically significant difference from group A (1.1 ± 0.72) and C (1.3 ± 0.66) (P=0.022). 1 day after the intervention VAS mean scores showed lower VAS mean score in group B patients (1.6 ± 0.82) than those in group A (2 ± 1.38) and group C (2.3 ± 1.03) (P=0.140).
After 1 week, group B patients showed lower VAS scores (2.22 ± 1.06) than group A (2.8 ± 1.2) and group C (2.5 ± 1.46) (P=0.363). Also, after
1 month, group B patients showed lower VAS scores (3 ± 0.97) than group A (3 ± 1.3) and group C (3.38 ± 1.86) (P=0.669).
After 6 months, group B patients showed lower VAS scores (2.88 ± 0.81) than group A (3.1 ± 1.41) and group C (3.14 ± 1.51) (P=0.820). Also after 12 months, group B patients showed lower VAS scores (3.88 ± 1.09) than group A (4.2 ± 1.51) and group C (4.71 ± 1.98) (P=0.336) (Table 10).
Group A Mean± SD | Group B Mean± SD | Group C Mean± SD | F P | ||
| Vas1hr | 1.1 ± 0.72 | 0.7 ± 0.66 | 1.3 ± 0.66 | 4.061 | 0.022* |
| VAS1d | 2 ± 1.38 | 1.6 ± 0.82 | 2.3 ± 1.03 | 2.038 | 0.140 |
| VAS1w | 2.8 ±1.2 | 2.22± 1.06 | 2.5 ± 1.46 | 1.032 | 0.363 |
| VAS1m | 3 ± 1.3 | 3 ± 0.97 | 3.38± 1.86 | 0.405 | 0.669 |
| VAS6m | 3.1 ± 1.41 | 2.88± 0.81 | 3.14± 1.51 | 0.199 | 0.820 |
| VAS12m | 4.2 ± 1.51 | 3.88± 1.09 | 4.71± 1.98 | 1.117 | 0.336 |
Table 10: VAS scores of the three groups after intervention
By comparing the three groups as regard the pain amplitude reduction 1 hour after the intervention, group B showed the greater pain amplitude reduction (6.8 ± 0.77) followed by group C (6.2 ± 1.11) then group A with the least pain amplitude reduction (5.8 ± 1.2) (P=0.013). Also 1 day after the intervention, group B showed pain amplitude reduction (5.9± 0.55) more than group C (5.2 ± 0.89) and group A (4.9 ± 1.48) and (P= 0.012).
One week after the intervention, there was statistically significant pain amplitude reduction in group B (5.33 ± 0.84) in comparison to group C (5.13 ± 0.96) and group A (4.1 ± 1.25) (P= 0.001).
On follow up after 1 month, group B showed pain reduction (3.9 ± 1.25) more than group C (4.25 ± 1) and group A (3.9 ± 1.25), but there was no statistically significant difference between the three groups (P= 0.152).
After 6 months, there was significant pain amplitude reduction in group B (4.75 ± 1) more than group C (4.14 ± 0.86) and group A (3.8 ± 1.01) (P= 0.019).
After 12 months, there was statistically significant pain amplitude reduction in group B (3.75 ± 0.86) in comparison to group A (2.7 ± 1.22) and C (2.57 ± 1.34) (P= 0.011) (Table 11).
amplitude reduction | Group A Mean ± SD | Group B Mean ± SD | Group C Mean ± SD | F | P |
| 1hr | 5.8 ±1.2 | 6.8 ± 0.77 | 6.2 ± 1.11 | 4.688 | 0.013* |
| 1d | 4.9 ± 1.48 | 5.9 ± 0.55 | 5.2 ± 0.89 | 4.780 | 0.012* |
| 1w | 4.1 ± 1.25 | 5.33± 0.84 | 5.13± 0.96 | 7.619 | 0.001* |
| 1m | 3.9 ± 1.25 | 4.56 ±0.7 | 4.25 ±1 | 1.958 | 0.152 |
| 6m | 3.8 ± 1.01 | 4.75 ±1 | 4.14± 0.86 | 4.327 | 0.019* |
| 12m | 2.7 ± 1.22 | 3.75± 0.86 | 2.57± 1.34 | 5.017 | 0.011* |
Table 11: Pain amplitude reduction in the three groups
Quality of life scores
In group A, there was non-significant difference as regard physical functioning scores before (93.89 ± 5.83) and after intervention (94.44 ± 6.16) (P=0.163). Also, there was non-significant difference as regard the role limitation due to physical health before (77.78 ± 25.57) and after (86.11 ± 12.78) intervention (P=0.055).
There was significant improvement in the role limitation due to emotional problems from mean score of 44.56 ± 28.19 to 66.67 ± 28.15 (P=0.001). Also, there was significant improvement in energy and fatigue mean scores from 41.11 ± 12.55 to 66.67 ± 28.15 (P=0.001).
As regard emotional wellbeing scores, it improved from 41.78 ± 13.18 before the intervention to 49.33 ± 13.44 after it (P=0.001). A highly significant improvement (P<0.001) in other scores was recorded as regard social functioning (from 40.33 ± 14.66 to 68.22 ± 12.34), pain score (from 33 ± 12.27 to 64.22 ± 13.34), general health (from 38.89 ± 17.62 to 49.44 ± 14.64) and change from previous year score (from 41.67 ± 12.13 to 83.33 ± 12.13) (Table 12).
Pre Post Group A (n = 20) (n = 20) t P Mean ± SD Mean ± SD | ||||
| Physical Functioning | 93.89 ± 5.83 | 94.44 ± 6.16 | 1.458 | 0.163 |
Role Limitations due to physical health | 77.78 ± 25.57 | 86.11 ± 12.78 | 2.062 | 0.055 |
Role Limitations due to emotional problems | 44.56 ± 28.19 | 66.67 ± 28.15 | 4.102 | 0.001* |
| Energy Fatigue | 41.11 ± 12.55 | 47.78 ± 10.88 | 4.123 | 0.001* |
| Emotional well being | 41.78 ± 13.18 | 49.33 ± 13.44 | 3.847 | 0.001* |
| Social Functioning | 40.33 ± 14.66 | 68.22 ± 12.34 | 11.744 | <0> |
| Pain | 33 ± 12.27 | 64.22 ± 13.34 | 14.750 | <0> |
| General Health | 38.89 ± 17.62 | 49.44 ± 14.64 | 4.299 | <0> |
Change from previous year | 41.67 ± 12.13 | 83.33 ± 12.13 | 10.308 | <0> |
Table 12: Quality of life scores in group A patients
Among group B patients, there was no difference in the mean score of the physical functioning before and after intervention (81.88 ± 18.96). There was significant improvement as regard the role limitation due to physical health before (56.25 ± 33.54) and after (68.75 ± 30.96) intervention (P=0.015).
There was highly significant improvement (P<0.001) as regard other scores, the role limitation due to emotional problems (from 50 ± 17.56 to 79.38 ± 16.5), energy and fatigue (from 31.25 ± 10.57 to 46.25 ± 12.32) emotional wellbeing scores (from 31.5 ± 13.61 to 50.5 ± 12.72), social functioning (from 29.88 ± 17 to 78.38 ± 8.64), pain score (from 23.25 ± 16.63 to 70.63 ± 12.66), general health (from 30.5 ± 17.32 to 40 ± 17.13) and change from previous year score (from 31.25 ± 17.08 to 87.5 ± 12.91) (Table 13).
Pre Post Group B (n = 16) (n = 16) t P Mean ± SD Mean ± SD | ||||
| Physical Functioning | 81.88 ± 18.96 | 81.88 ± 18.96 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Role Limitations due to physical health | 56.25 ± 33.54 | 68.75 ± 30.96 | 2.739 | 0.015* |
Role Limitations due to emotional problems | 50 ± 17.56 | 79.38 ± 16.5 | 5.660 | <0> |
| Energy Fatigue | 31.25 ± 10.57 | 46.25 ± 12.32 | 6.211 | <0> |
| Emotional well being | 31.5 ± 13.61 | 50.5 ± 12.72 | 6.154 | <0> |
| Social Functioning | 29.88 ± 17 | 78.38 ± 8.64 | 11.045 | <0> |
| Pain | 23.25 ± 16.63 | 70.63 ± 12.66 | 17.000 | <0> |
| General Health | 30.5 ± 17.32 | 40 ± 17.13 | 19.170 | <0> |
Change from previous year | 31.25 ± 17.08 | 87.5 ± 12.91 | 10.510 | <0> |
Table 13: Quality of life scores in group B patients
Among group C patients, there was no difference in the mean score of the physical functioning before and after intervention (86.88 ± 24.21) and the role limitation due to physical health before and after intervention (60 ± 31.62).
There was significant improvement in energy and fatigue mean scores from 33.75 ± 14.08 to 41.25 ± 11.18 (P=0.018) and emotional wellbeing score from 41.13 ± 18.51 to 49 ± 8.7 (P=0.016).
There was highly significant improvement (P<0.001) as regard other scores, the role limitation due to emotional problems (from 45.63 ± 24.14 to 66.88 ± 17.3), social functioning (from 39.38 ± 17.67 to 67.38 ± 12.87), pain score (from 30.5 ± 17.59 to 62.5 ± 11.89), general health (from 38.75 ± 16.28 to 44.38 ± 14.48) and change from previous year score (from 31.88 ± 15.48 to 81.25 ± 11.18) (Table 14).
Pre Post Group C (n = 14) (n = 14) T P Mean ± SD Mean ± SD | ||||
| Physical Functioning | 86.88 ± 24.21 | 86.88 ± 24.21 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Role Limitations due to physical health | 60 ± 31.62 | 60 ± 31.62 | 0.0 | 1.0 |
Role Limitations due to emotional problems | 45.63 ± 24.14 | 66.88 ± 17.3 | 5.000 | <0> |
| Energy Fatigue | 33.75 ± 14.08 | 41.25 ± 11.18 | 2.666 | 0.018* |
| Emotional well being | 41.13 ± 18.51 | 49 ± 8.7 | 2.700 | 0.016* |
| Social Functioning | 39.38 ± 17.67 | 67.38 ± 12.87 | 7.324 | <0> |
| Pain | 30.5 ± 17.59 | 62.5 ± 11.89 | 14.287 | <0> |
| General Health | 38.75 ± 16.28 | 44.38 ± 14.48 | 4.700 | <0> |
Change from previous year | 31.88 ± 15.48 | 81.25 ± 11.18 | 13.217 | <0> |
Table 14: Quality of life scores in group C patients
By comparing the three groups scores there was non-statistically significant difference in the scores as regard physical functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, pain, general health and change from previous year either the pre-interventional scores (P=0.116, 0.581, 0.416, 0.286, 0.069 respectively) or the post-interventional scores (P=0.095, 0.169, 0.170, 0.214, 0.338 respectively).
As regard role limitation due to physical health, there was non- statistically significant difference between the pre-interventional scores of the three groups (P=0.08), while there was statistically significant difference between the post-interventional scores (P=0.013). Group A showed the highest score while group C showed the lowest score.
As regard the energy and fatigue and the emotional wellbeing, there was statistically significant difference between the pre-interventional scores (P=0.023, 0.025 respectively) with group B showed the lowest score while group A showed the highest score. While there was non-statistically significant difference between the three groups as regard the post- interventional scores (P=0.239, 0.932 respectively).
As regard the social functioning, there was non-statistically significant difference between the pre-interventional scores (P=0.160), while there was statistically significant difference between the three groups as regard the post-interventional scores (P=0.015). With group B showed the highest score and group C showed the lowest score (Table 15).
| Pre-intervention scores Post-intervention scores | ||||
| F | P | F | P | |
| Physical Functioning | 2.254 | 0.116 | 2.467 | 0.095 |
Role Limitations due to physical health | 2.667 | 0.080 | 4.695 | 0.013* |
Role Limitations due to emotional problems | 0.548 | 0.581 | 1.845 | 0.169 |
| Energy/ Fatigue | 4.027 | 0.023* | 1.476 | 0.239 |
| Emotional well being | 3.949 | 0.025* | 0.071 | 0.932 |
| Social Functioning | 1.895 | 0.160 | 4.621 | 0.015* |
| Pain | 0.890 | 0.416 | 1.840 | 0.170 |
| General Health | 1.282 | 0.286 | 1.596 | 0.214 |
Change from previous year | 2.817 | 0.069 | 1.111 | 0.338 |
Table 15: Comparison between the pre and post-interventional scores of the three groups as regard the quality of life questionnaire
Complications of the procedure:
Four patients developed local mild edema at the site of needle puncture which was resolved within hours using ice packs. No other complications were reported after the intervention or any of the patients needed hospitalization.
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a relatively common chronic neuropathic condition, presenting with recurrent episodes of intense, burning, or electric shock-like pain distributed along one or more branches of the trigeminal nerve [8]. The diagnosis of TN is predominantly clinical, as there remains a lack of objective diagnostic investigations. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a critical role in identifying secondary causes such as multiple sclerosis, which may present with similar symptoms [9].
First-line treatment for TN is pharmacological, primarily relying on anticonvulsants. Carbamazepine remains the most effective and commonly prescribed agent. Additional options include baclofen, lamotrigine, phenytoin, gabapentin, and sodium valproate, especially when carbamazepine is not tolerated or fails to achieve adequate pain control [9]. In cases where medical therapy is ineffective, interventional management becomes necessary. These interventions are typically classified into two main categories: ablative and restorative techniques [10]. Ablative procedures, such as glycerol injections, radiofrequency thermal coagulation, balloon compression, and gamma knife radiosurgery, focus on lesioning the nerve to interrupt pain signals. While often effective in providing pain relief, they carry a notable risk of sensory loss due to nerve damage. Restorative procedures aim to preserve nerve integrity; these include microvascular decompression and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) therapy [11].
Pulsed radiofrequency is fundamentally different from conventional radiofrequency in that it applies short bursts of high-frequency electrical current, allowing time for tissue cooling between pulses. This prevents thermal destruction of neural tissue and instead creates a neuromodulatory effect by altering C-fiber signaling, thereby achieving analgesia without structural damage or deafferentation [12]. For this reason, PRF is considered a safer alternative, particularly in managing idiopathic TN.
In our study, a clear female predominance (63.3%) was noted among TN patients, compared to males (36.7%). This finding aligns with previous epidemiological research: Katusic et al. [13] reported a significantly higher incidence in females (5.9 per 100,000) compared to males (3.4 per 100,000). Similarly, Bennetto et al. [14] observed that 62% of their TN patients were female. Other studies have corroborated these gender differences, such as Jainkittivong et al. [15], Teixeira et al. [16], and De Siqueira et al. [17], all reporting female predominance in TN cohorts. One proposed explanation involves postmenopausal osteoporosis in women, which can result in progressive basilar impression and subsequent compression of the trigeminal nerve [18].
Regarding age distribution, the mean age of TN onset in our study was 49.13 ± 6.81 years, with the youngest patient being 37 years and the oldest 60 years. This trend is supported by literature, with Jainkittivong et al. [15] stating the peak incidence occurs between 50 and 69 years. Likewise, Maarbjerg et al. [19] reported a mean onset age of 52.9 years and an average age of 62.5 years. Teixeira et al. [16] and De Siqueira et al. [17] found mean ages of 60.8 and 54 years, respectively. The increasing incidence with age has been attributed to age-related anatomical changes, such as elongation of cerebral arteries and brain sagging, leading to pulsatile compression of the trigeminal nerve [18].
Our findings also showed that TN more frequently affected the right side of the face (56.7%) compared to the left (43.3%). This observation is consistent with those of Maarbjerg et al. [19], who found right-sided involvement in 56% of patients. Jainkittivong et al. [15] reported a right-to-left side pain ratio of 1.8:1. Similarly, Siqueira et al. [20] and Bangash [21] documented higher prevalence on the right side, with Bangash noting that 64% of patients experienced right-sided pain. The anatomical rationale for this asymmetry remains speculative, but one plausible explanation is that the foramina rotundum and ovale—through which the maxillary and mandibular branches of the trigeminal nerve pass—are often narrower on the right side, potentially increasing the likelihood of nerve entrapment [22].
In our study, we observed that pain was most commonly distributed along the mandibular division (V3) in 60% of the patients, followed by the maxillary division (V2) in 13.33%, and the combined involvement of V2 and V3 in 16.67% of the cases. Pain localized exclusively to the ophthalmic division (V1) occurred in 6.67% of patients, while simultaneous involvement of all three branches (V1, V2, and V3) was seen in only 3.33%. These findings are consistent with previous literature. Bangash [21] reported that the mandibular division was the most frequently affected (55%), followed by the maxillary (39%) and ophthalmic (6%) divisions. That study also identified combined V2 and V3 involvement in 9% of cases, with no patients exhibiting pain across all three divisions. De Siqueira et al. [17] similarly found that the mandibular and maxillary branches were individually affected in 29.5% of cases each, while combined involvement was seen in 20.5%. Anatomically, entrapment of the maxillary and mandibular nerves as they pass through the foramina rotundum and ovale may underlie these distribution patterns [22]. However, Bangash [21] noted that no definitive explanation has been established for the selective involvement of certain trigeminal branches.
Regarding treatment efficacy, our analysis of Group A patients—who underwent pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) using the standard technique—revealed a highly significant reduction in pain amplitude. The most notable improvement was observed in the first hour (84.18%) and on the first day (71.26%) post-intervention. Pain reduction remained substantial at one month (57.78%) and six months (56.09%), though it decreased to 39.53% by twelve months. Nevertheless, all reductions remained statistically significant when compared to baseline pain scores. These results align with the findings of Van Zundert et al. [23], who first introduced PRF as a therapeutic alternative to conventional radiofrequency (CRF). They reported excellent pain relief in four out of five patients for an average duration of 17.5 months.
Similarly, Luo et al. [24] found that standard PRF resulted in satisfactory outcomes in 41% of TN patients at six months post-treatment, though the effectiveness dropped to 19
Despite its strengths, this study has some limitations. The sample size, while adequate for preliminary analysis, remains relatively small for generalizing findings. Follow-up was limited to 12 months, which may not fully capture long-term recurrence or delayed adverse effects. The study was also limited to patients with classic TN without any MRI/MRA abnormalities, excluding patients with secondary TN, which narrows the scope of applicability. Finally, blinding and randomization were not described in detail, which could introduce selection or performance bias.
This study concludes that PRF, particularly when applied with prolonged duration or increased voltage, is a highly effective and well-tolerated intervention for pain relief in classic trigeminal neuralgia. Among the three groups, the prolonged duration technique yielded the most sustained pain reduction, followed by high-voltage PRF. These techniques showed statistically significant improvements in pain scores and quality of life, with minimal complications reported. The study supports the notion that parameter modification in PRF can enhance its therapeutic efficacy without compromising safety.
Based on the findings, it is recommended that clinicians consider using modified PRF parameters—particularly prolonged application duration—for patients with medically refractory classic TN. Future research should include larger, multicenter randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods to validate these findings and establish standardized PRF protocols.
Abbreviation Full Term
TN Trigeminal Neuralgia
PRF Pulsed Radiofrequency
PRFT Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment
VAS Visual Analog Scale
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MRA Magnetic Resonance Angiography
IHS International Headache Society
SD Standard Deviation
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
RF Radiofrequency
The authors would like to thank the patients who participated in this study, and the medical staff at Mansoura University Hospital for their support during recruitment and procedures. Special thanks to the Department of Neurology and Anesthesia for their collaboration and clinical assistance.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article
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.
