AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0427/013
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Leuven, Pellenberg, Belgium.
*Corresponding Author: Jaxon Dawson,Department of Orthopaedics, La Rabta Teaching Hospital Center, Tunis, 1007, Tunisia.
Citation: Jaxon Dawson, Drew Brody. (2018). “Zoledronate and ibandronate treatments provide a significant improvement in BMD values in osteoporosis patients”, J. Orthopaedics and Surgical Sports Medicine. 1(3); Doi:10.31579/2641-0427/013
Copyright: © 2018 Jaxon Dawson. 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: 10 October 2018 | Accepted: 26 October 2018 | Published: 13 November 2018
Keywords: osteoporosis, treatment, zoledronat, ibandronat, effectivity, side effects
Objective: In this study, we aimed to make a comparative analysis of short term clinical effectivity and side effects of intravenous zoledronate administration as single dose yearly and intravenous ibandronate administration as four doses per year.
Methods: The patients whom were included in our study had osteoporosis according to WHO criteria and were treated with either parenteral zoledronate or ibandronate. 43 patients were treated with single dose of 5mg intravenous zolendronat which was applied once in a year; whereas in 39 patients were treated with 3 mg intravenous ibandronate which was applied four times in a year in three months intervals. Biochemical tests were performed in all patients before intravenous drug infusion. Side effects during drug administration and also in the first three months of the treatment were noted for all patients. Clinical effectivity was analyzed according to changes in bone mineral density (BMD) at the end of two year after treatment.
Results: Eighty-two patients who were followed-up and evaluated for the effectivity and side effects of the treatment were included in our study. The compliance of patients were 100% in both groups. Mean age was 75.23±6.9 years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.94±7.2. In zoledronate group in which there were 23 females and 20 males. Mean age was 73.64±8.7 years and mean BMI was 27.34±4.4. In ibandronate group in which there were 39 females. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of gender (p=0.000) Mean age, BMI and rate of diagnosed side effects were not statistically significant in between the groups. According to a one-year follow-up in both groups comparison with before application had a statistically significant increase in BMD (p<0.01). However, a one-year follow-up between the two groups in terms of mean values of bone mineral density did not differ significantly (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Choice of medical treatment is decided according to bone mineral density and personal risk factors in osteoporosis. Parenteral agents in the treatment of osteoporosis may be the preferred choice for the patients with comorbid diseases, using multiple drug therapies, or having trouble in using oral drug therapy. However, it should always be kept in mind that drug related side effects may be seen more commonly with parenteral agents. Clinicians should be aware of the probable side effects during and after application.
Osteoporosis (OP) is a systemic metabolic bone disease which is characterized by low bone mass and deterioration of bone micro-architecture, resulting in increased susceptibility to fractures [1]. The world health organization (WHO) reported that nearly 30% of women over 50 years of age have osteoporosis and increased risk of fractures, while one eighths of men carry risk of fracture [2]. Femoral neck fractures related to vertebral and distal radius fractures are most commonly observed in patients with osteoporosis [3]. Applications for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of OP may prevent fractures and its sequellae [4]. However, today, a completely safe, effective and generally accepted treatment for OP has not been defined yet [5].
Medications preventing bone resorption or increasing bone formation are used alone or in combination during the treatment [6]. Bisphosphonates (BF), which are widely used in the treatment of osteoporosis, are connected to hydroxyapatite in bone, provide resistance to the action of pyrophosphatases, reducing bone resorption [7]. In addition, they show action by changing the properties of the bone matrix responsible for the activation of osteoclasts, affecting the formation of osteoclast from progenitor cells, and by inhibiting the function of mature osteoclasts [7,8]. In the case of oral bisphosphonates, there can be upper gastrointestinal (GiS) side effects, acute phase reaction, hypocalcemia and secondary hyperparathyroidism, musculoskeletal pain, osteonecrosis of the jaw and eye complaints [5,9]. Where as in the case of intravenous bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, etc.) used to treat osteoporosis, all of the side effects mentioned above may develop, other than upper GiS complaints. Renal toxicity, though less, may develop in the case of zoledronate [5,9].
In this study, the aim was to compare early period side effects and short-term action of a single dose per year of zoledronate administered as an intravenous infusion and ibandronate therapy which is applied 4 times per year.
82 patients admitted to our outpatient orthopedics clinic and diagnosed with osteoporosis according to WHO criteria were included in our study. The patients were asked for getting information about on their age, height, weight, number of pregnancies, smoking and alcohol use, medication use history and whether they have any additional disease or not. Ibandronate is indicated only in using of the treatment, for patients who postmenopausal Osteoporosis or Osteoporotic women in our country. Thus Male Patients were used only Zolendronate. Consequently the patients were not randomized.
Clinical evaluations, radiologic images, blood parameters and bone mineral density measurements of patients for a diagnosis of osteoporosis were recorded. The patients were divided into two groups as the group receiving parenteral zoledronate therapy (Group 1, n=43) and the group receiving ibandronate therapy (Group 2, n=39). 5 mg zoledronate was administered to the patients in Group 1 as an intravenous infusion for 15 minutes once a year, and IV ibandronate was administered to the patients in Group 2 as an intravenous infusion once every quarter of a year under hospital conditions. In order to investigate the effectiveness of treatments applied to these patients with a T-score of -2.5 and below, their bone mineral density (BMD) values were evaluated at the end of a two year follow-up period. Their values before and after drug administration were considered, and any side effects developed during and at the end of treatment were recorded.
Statistical analysis
SPSS 11.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL) statistical analysis software was used for the statistical calculations. Normal distribution of our data was evaluated using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Afterwards, T-test for comparison of demographic data and the test for the comparison of categorical data were used. On the other hand, Mann-Whitney U test was used for as compared to baseline vertebral and hip BMD and T scores between groups. Wilkonson Signed Rank Test for delta change before-after treatment in groups were used. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The results are expressed as the mean±standard deviation or median (25 and 75 percentile).
A total of 82 patients who were observed and questioned about side effects during and at the end of the administration were included in the study, and the mean follow-up time was 26 months. The compliance of patients were 100% in both groups. In group 1 treated with zoledronate, mean age of 43 patients was 75.23±6.9 and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.94±7.2. Of these patients, 23 were women (54%) and 20 were men (46%). In group 2 treated with ibandronate, mean age of 39 patients was 73.64±8.7 and their mean BMI was 27.34±4.4. Of all these patients were women. A statistically significant difference was existed between the groups in terms of gender (p=0.000). However, there was no statistical difference in terms of age, BMI and rate of observed side effects (Table 1). In zoledronate group, gastrointestinal system (GIS) side effects were detected in 3 patients and acutephase reaction (APR) was detected in 2 patients, while in ibandronate group, GIS side effects were detected in one patient and side effects including APR were detected in another patient.
Group 1 as compared to baseline vertebral and hip BMD and T scores had improvement significantly after treatment. Likewise Group 2 as compared to baseline vertebral and hip BMD and T scores had improvement significantly after treatment ((Table 2).
On the other hand, in both groups, as compared to baseline post-treatment vertebral& hip BMD and post-treatment vertebral & hip T scores were not significantly difference between the groups (Table 2).
There was significant difference between groups in compared of Vt delta changes and the amount of improvement was greater in group 2. Also there was significant difference between groups in compared of Hbmd delta changes and the amount of improvement was greater in group 2 (Table 2).
The most widely used method for screening and diagnosis of osteoporosis is the measurement of bone mineral density (BMD) in the hip and lumbar region by central Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). According to WHO diagnostic criteria, -2.5 and below cause a diagnosis of osteoporosis [10,11]. Treatment indications were established by National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) as a T-score of -2.5 or below in postmenopausal women and men aged 50 years and above, presence of a hip or vertebral fracture, fracture history in conjunction with low bone density (T score in the range of–1 and –2.5), presence of secondary causes increasing fracture risk related to low bone density, low bone density and a 10- year hip fracture risk of 3% or above or 10-year fracture risk of 20% or above according to FRAX scoring [12,13].
In medical treatment OP; bisphosphonates, strontium, teriparatide, selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) and calcitonin are used. Bisphosphonates are the antiresorptive agents which are most commonly used to treat OP and reduce the risk of hip fracture in the elderly patients mostly. Even after bisphosphonates are discontinued, their positive effects on bone are maintained and they are the best agents to prefer in senile and male OP [5,12,14,15]. Based on these, we planned this study to compare the effects and possible side effects on bone mineral density of two bisphosphonate medications used to treat osteoporosis.
Bisphosphonates are safe and well tolerated drugs used in the treatment of osteoporosis and a number of side effects may occur depending on their use. These are usually upper gastrointestinal system (GIS) and acute influenza-like symptoms. Upper gastrointestinal symptoms usually appear during oral bisphosphonate therapy, while temporary influenza-like symptoms frequently appear during IV administration of nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates (pamidronate, ibandronate, zeledronic acid) [16-18]. Eye-related side effects were also reported [19]. In a study in which risedronate was investigated, 3 years after treatment the incidence of GIS side effects was found as 27%, while this percentage was reported as 26% in the placebo group. In the case of 5-year results, it was demonstrated that the placebo group with 13.8% caused greater incidence of GIS side effects compared to the risedronate group with 12.6% [20]. Similar results were also reported for ibandronate in BONE study [21]. On the contrary, in the HORIZON study [22], patients treated with zoledronic acid were reported to suffer from GIS side effects, including nausea (8.5% and 5.2%), vomiting (4.6% and 3.2%), diarrhea (6%, 5.6%), upper abdominal pain (4.6% and 3.1%) and dyspepsia (4.3% and 4%), compared to the placebo group.
Acute phase reaction (APR) is characterized by low-grade fever, myalgia, arthralgia, and headache. This influenza like symptoms generally occur within three days of drug administration and symptoms usually resolve 2-3 days of administration and may last for 7-14 days [16,23]. Symptoms which appear at a rate of 10% after iv administrations may also be observed in oral applications if adequate dosage is reached. In the HORIZON study [24], acute phase reaction symptoms were found significantly high in zoledronic acid group, compared to the placebo group (31.6%, 6.2%, respectively). High BF blood concentrations reached during iv treatments may cause acute renal problems. This effect could not be shown in therapeutical doses of oral BFs [25]. Still, in patients with a creatinine clearance lower than 30 ml/min, it is appropriate for avoiding using either oral or parenteral BF because there isn't enough clinical experience. In studies carried out on the subject, alendronate [26], risedronate [27] and ibandronate [28] were shown to have renal side effects similar to those of placebo. It was reported that mild and transient serum creatinine level appearing on day 9 and 11, resulting from use of zoledronic acid in osteoporosis treatment, is not permanent at the end of 3 years, and that renal side effects are comparable to placebo [9,24]. In a study conducted using 5 mg zoledronate in postmenopausal osteoporosis patients, atrial fibrillation risk was found to be high, however, it was concluded in subsequent studies that such an increased risk does not exist [24,30]. Osteonecrosis of the jaw can be seen in cancer patients while they are using highly dose iv pamidronate or zoledronic acid [9].
In our study, APR-like findings were observed in 3 patients (8%) and GIS side effects were detected in 2 patients (5%) from zoledronate group. While in ibandronate group, GIS side effects were observed in one patient (2.7%) and APRlike side effects were observed in one patient (2.7%), which are less than those in the literature.
Zoledronate is the only FDA-approved agent used to prevent further fractures after an osteoporotic hip fracture. In the HORIZON-PFT study conducted to determine the effects of zoledronic acid in the case of postmenopausal osteoporosis, zoledronic acid was administered to 3881 patients at baseline, 12th and 24th months. The patients were on follow-up for 3 years and compared with placebo group. In that study, new vertebral fractures and hip fractures were considered as the primary endpoint. In zoledronic acid group, morphometric vertebral fracture risk and hip fracture risk decreased by 70% and 41%, respectively within 3 years [31]. HORIZON Recurrent Fracture Study covered patients with a mean age of 74.5 who have undergone surgery for osteoporotic hip fracture in the last 3 months, and rates of having new clinical fracture were taken into consideration as the primary target. The risk of having a new clinical fracture decreased by 35% in the group treated with zoledronic acid within an average of 19 months, compared to placebo. Zoledronic acid treatment also decreased the mortality rate by 28% [24,29]. In a study conducted on glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis patients, it was observed that zoledronate treatment is more effective than risedronate treatment and it caused a higher increase in lumbar spine BMD after treatment than risedronate treatment. (Zoledronate 4.1%,
Risedronate 2.7%) [32]. In an osteoporosis study by Voskaridou et al., on thalassemia patients, IV 4 mg zoledronate was administered to one group once every 6 months, IV 4 mg zoledronate was administered to another group once every 3 months and placebo treatment was applied to another once every 3 months for 1 year, and the patients who received IV 4 mg zoledronate once every 3 months were found to have higher lumbar spine BMD, whereas no such change was detected in the placebo group [33]. In one study, the patients who were followed-up with daily oral ibandronate of 2.5 mg were found to have a 52% reduced vertebral fracture risk and a 6.5% increased lumbar spine BMD [34]. In a DIVA (Dosing IntraVenous Administration) study, similar increase was observed in the case of double IV ibandronate treatment (3mg once every 3 months, 2mg once every 2 months) compared to baseline lumbar BMD (5.1% and 4.8%), and an increase of 3.8% was observed in lumbar BMD with daily oral 2.5 mg ibondronate treatment compared to baseline values [35]. In our study, in both groups as compared to baseline vertebral and hip BMD and T scores had improvement significantly after treatment (Table 2), and these values are similar to those reported in the literature.
We could not find any certain knowledge on the literature and also there is no consensus about how to follow up? And especially how and/or what way to measure the affectiveness of treatment? How much change is required for clinical significance? [11,14,36-46]. In the study, patients receiving bisphosphonate treatment causing a decline in BMD have a higher for osteopotic fracture risk compared with patients whose BMD increases [36]. In another study, It is reported that causes significant changes in fracture risk, even a small difference like as -0.225 on the basis of T-score [37]. In our study, delta changes for vertebral and hip T-score were in the range between 0.20-0.36 vertebral in both groups. Also delta changes for vertebral and hip BMD were in the range between 0.02- 0.21 in both groups (Table 2).
BMD and T-score in the assessment of osteoporotic fracture risk is important. However, it is not enough. When calculating the risk of fracture not only BMD but also bone turnover, bone architecture, bone strength as well as other factors must be considered. Osteopenic patients are at risk, such as patients with osteoporosis [38-40]. Current diagnosis and treatment decisions for osteoporosis must be depended on the fracture risk calculated based on the results of comprehensive diagnostic procedures [38,41,42]. Monitoring the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment presents a challenge in everyday clinical practice. In general, the efficacy of the therapy is evaluated by comparing pre and post treatment BMD and/ or T-score. As an alternative, BMD and T-score along with other parameters such as biochemical markers of bone turnover can be used to assess effectiveness of treatment in the osteoporotic patients [39,43-45]. In our study, we can mention reduced osteoporotic fracture risk because it's a significant improvement after treatment compared to before treatment in both groups.
It was demonstrated in this study that zoledronate and ibandronate treatments provide a significant improvement in BMD values in osteoporosis patients and there is no significant difference between their efficacies and side effects. Parenteral treatment of osteoporosis is considered as a treatment option that provides high patient compliance in elderly osteoporotic patients with comorbid diseases taking several medications, and precautions should be taken against any side effects that may occur during and after intravenous administration.
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.
