AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Jana Preis, Chief of Medical Service, Northport VA Medical Center, Northport, NY, USA.
Citation: Alessandro C., Arif N., Wang R., Ganz M., Preis J., et al., (2023), Effect of Covid19 Pandemic on Preventive Vaccinations Among Patients with The End Stage Kidney Disease At New York Harbor VA Medical Center, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, 15(2); DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/349
Copyright: © 2023, Jana Preis. 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: 03 November 2023 | Accepted: 27 November 2023 | Published: 04 December 2023
Keywords: pandemic; COVID19; vaccination; transplants; compliance; hemodialysis
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic revealed challenges and barriers in achieving high preventive vaccination rates. This study aimed to explore the effects of the pandemic on vaccination rates in patients with end stage kidney disease (kidney dialysis) patients in New York City. These patients compose a challenging cohort as their transplant optimization includes routine vaccinations including pneumococcal, flu, Hepatitis A and B, meningococcal, H flu, HPV, Tdap, RZV, and Covid.
Materials and Methods: This study population consisted of 142 participants from two Veteran Affairs hospitals in New York City. Vaccination and demographic information were compiled via EMR and compared to long term US vaccination rates using exact binomial tests. Secondary analysis using generalized estimating equations was used to compare vaccination rates pre- and post-pandemic within the Brooklyn VA population controlling for demographic variables.
Results: The combined vaccination rate for the post-pandemic period was found to be significantly lower than the pre-pandemic rate in the general US population for several vaccines, including Hepatitis A (CI: 0.088, 0.098; p<0.001), Influenza (CI: 0.68, 0.69, p<0.001), Meningococcal (CI: 0.34, 0.35; p<0.001), MMR (, CI: 0.51, 0.52; p=0.001), and TDAP (CI: 0.18, 0.20; p<0.001). Secondary analysis using generalized estimating equations controlling for age, race, and time on dialysis within the Brooklyn VA population revealed increases in post-pandemic vaccination rates for Shingles (subunit; B=1.03; 95% Wald CI: .178, 1.87; p=.018) and Hepatitis B (B=-.739; 95% Wald CI: .084, 1.39; p=.027), while a significant decrease was observed for Hep A (B=-2.65; 95% Wald CI: -4.4, -.90; p=.003).
Conclusion: This data demonstrates that post-pandemic vaccination rates in VA dialysis patients is lower than the past 10-year US average for several vaccines including Hepatitis A, Influenza, Meningococcal, MMR, and TDAP. Mixed effects of pre- and post-pandemic vaccination rates within the Brooklyn VA were also found with a decreased vaccination rate for Hepatitis A, and increased rates for Shingles and Hepatitis B. Further study is needed to evaluate pandemic’s effect on these rates, disease prevention, and identify the reasons contributing to vaccine hesitancy vs. acceptance.
The outbreak of COVID-19 had a significant impact on the field of medicine which affected protocols, treatments, and preventative measures such as vaccination for chronic disease [1]. One of the main challenges to achieving high vaccination rates in the United States is vaccine hesitancy, which refers to a reluctance or refusal to be vaccinated. Vaccine hesitancy can be caused by multiple factors including misinformation, mistrust of the medical establishment, and poor access to healthcare [2]. Although there are recognized side-effects of vaccination such as myocarditis, their widespread reporting and misinformation surrounding severity have contributed to vaccination hesitancy [3]. Systemic issues in vaccination adherence have been exacerbated by the pandemic, with approximately a quarter of the population of high-income countries with access to vaccines being unsure or unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccines [2].
The nature of the pandemic impact on vaccination rates is an area of active research and is perhaps especially pertinent to patient populations with compromised immune status, such as transplant candidates who experience significant delays in obtaining the necessary operations and decreased overall quality of care [4]. Kidney transplantation is among the most common solid-organ transplants worldwide [5]. Live donor transplantation has become the optimal treatment for kidney failure as it offers improved quality of life and reduced mortality at lower costs to healthcare and in comparison, to maintenance dialysis [6]. Vaccination is crucial in optimizing kidney transplant candidates, as it helps protect these immunocompromised patients from vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) and improves their chances of successful transplantation [7]. Patient optimization in preparation for receiving transplants involves patients being up to date with vaccination series, including pneumococcal, flu, Hepatitis A and B, meningococcal, H flu, HPV, Tdap, RZV, and Covid vaccines [8, 9].
From 2010 to 2016, rates of adherence to vaccination series in the United States were robust, with vaccination rates maintaining 80.4% for DT, DTP3, or DTaP, 92.5%, Polio, 90.8%, MMR, 80.0%, Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), 91.4%, Hep B, 90.3% for one or more doses of Varicella, 81.4% for four or more doses of PCV, and 69.7% for the combined 7-vaccine series [10]. Vaccination rates have decreased globally since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted healthcare systems worldwide, leading to disruptions in routine care and vaccination programs [11-13].
The VA population also has a high burden, especially in the context of the COVID pandemic. A study done on the VA population (n=1,178) found that 71% of Veterans (n=1,178) reported not wanting to get vaccinated for COVID [14]. The main reasons included skepticism (36%), concerns about side-effects (20%), preferred using few medications (19%), preferring to wait as the vaccine was new (22%), and distrust of the healthcare system (18%) [14]. These perspectives may suggest a distrust of healthcare, as well as a lack of widespread education about the vaccine in this population. It would be helpful to see how the pandemic changed skepticism in this community and if these veterans already had low rates of vaccination before the pandemic ever touched the nation.
This study aims to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the vaccination rates among kidney transplant candidates in two Veteran Affairs (VA) hospitals in New York City and compare them to the pre-pandemic vaccination rates in the general United States population.
The study population consisted of kidney dialysis patients from two Veteran Affairs (VA) hospitals in New York City, the Brooklyn VA and Manhattan VA. Inclusionary and exclusionary criteria were created based on authors’ discretion. Inclusionary criteria included adults who have been on dialysis since prior to the beginning of the COVID pandemic in New York, March 20, 2020. Data was collected from electronic medical records including age, gender, and race. Vaccination history and time on dialysis was also collected. Exclusionary criteria included death before initiation of data gathering and patients no longer receiving dialysis at the VA hospitals. Vaccine information was obtained for the following vaccines: MMR, Varicella, Shingles (live), Shingles (subunit), Hepatitis B, Pneumo, Influenza, TDAP, Hep A, HPV, and Meningo. These vaccines were chosen as they are necessary for kidney transplant optimization [8, 9]. Pre-pandemic vaccination doses were cut off to 1.5 years prior to March 20, 2020. Post-pandemic vaccination doses were cut off an equivalent 1.5 years after March 20, 2020. These periods were selected to create a balanced comparison of vaccination pre- and post- pandemic as data gathering initiated 1.5 years after the beginning of the pandemic.
Data analysis included descriptive statistics to summarize demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. The primary analysis used exact binomial tests to compare post-pandemic vaccination rates among the combined Brooklyn and Manhattan VA populations to pre-pandemic vaccination rates in the general US population. Secondary analysis was done within the Brooklyn VA population due to increased data availability. Chi-squared tests were used to compare vaccination rates before and after the start of the pandemic within the Brooklyn VA population. Logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was calculated to determine rates of vaccination before and after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic while controlling for age, race, and time on dialysis in the Brooklyn VA. The regression coefficient (B) and 95% Wald Confidence Intervals were used to interpret the results of the logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at p Less than 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.3 (15).
Post-pandemic rates of vaccination were combined from the Brooklyn and Manhattan VA populations. There were 142 participants in total (98% male) with an average age of 69. Participants were dialysis patients within the Brooklyn and Manhattan VA hospitals who passed the inclusionary and exclusionary criteria. The population was 79 Percentage African American, 8% White, and 13% Other. Participants had a combined vaccination rate of: 51.4% for MMR, 57.7% for Shingles, 82.4% for Hep B, 68.3% for Influenza, 19.0% for TDAP, 9.2% for Hep A, 26.1% for HPV, and 34.5% for Meningococcal vaccines. These values were compared to 10-year pre-pandemic vaccination rates of the general United States population using exact binomial tests. The general population had a pre-pandemic vaccination rate of: 65% for MMR, 52% for Shingles, 82% for Hep B, 91% for Influenza, 83% for TDAP, 42% for Hep A, 26% for HPV, and 74% for Meningococcal vaccines. Vaccination rates in the combined VA group compared to the general United states population were less for Hepatitis A (p Less than 0.001, CI: 0.088, 0.098), Influenza (p Less than 0.001, CI: 0.68, 0.69), Meningococcal (p Less than 0.001, CL: 0.34, 0.35), MMR (p=0.001, CI: 0.51, 0.52), and TDAP (p Less than 0.001, CI: 0.18, 0.20). There was no significant difference in vaccination rates of Hepatitis B (p=1, CI: 0.82, 0.83), HPV (p=1, CI: 0.26, 0.27), and shingles (p=0.17, CI: 0.57, 0.58).
Figure 1: Exact binomial tests comparing vaccination rates pre-pandemic in the general United States population (blue) to post-pandemic vaccination rates for dialysis patients within the Brooklyn and Manhattan VA hospitals (red). Asterisks signify p Less than 0.05.
Secondary analysis was performed within the Brooklyn VA. Chi Squared analysis was used to compare vaccination rates before and after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in New York (March 1, 2020). Additionally, a logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was calculated to determine rates of vaccination before and after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic controlling for age, race, and time on dialysis in the Brooklyn VA. Vaccines in this secondary analysis include MMR, Varicella, Shingles (live), Shingles (subunit), Hepatitis B, Pneumo, Influenza, TDAP, Hep A, HPV, and Meningo. Several vaccines had equivalent pre- and post- pandemic values, and they were excluded from analysis. The final analysis includes Shingles (subunit), Hepatitis B, Influenza, TDAP, and Hep A vaccines. Post-pandemic vaccination rates decreased for Hep A (OR=.077; CI: .009, .634; p=.003). Rates of shingles (subunit; OR=2.6; CI: .73, 9.3; p=.130), Hep B (OR=2.0; CI: .83, 4.9; p=.12), Influenza (OR=1.7; CI: .686, 4.3; p=.248), and TDAP (OR=1.4; CI: .554, 3.5; p=.49) did not differ pre- and post- pandemic.
Using generalized estimating equations, patients’ age, race, and time on dialysis was controlled when determining changes in pre- and post- pandemic vaccination rates. Using this method, Shingles (subunit; B=1.03; 95% Wald CI: .178, 1.87; p=.018) and Hep B (B=.739; 95% Wald CI: .084, 1.39; p=.027) were found to have higher vaccination rates post-pandemic. Hep A (B=-2.65; 95% Wald CI: -4.4, -.90; p=.003) was found to have a lower post-pandemic vaccination rate. Influenza (B=.59; 95% Wald CI: -.23, 1.4; p=.16) and TDAP (B=.332; 95% Wald CI: -.39, 1.0; p=.36) did not have significantly different rates.
Table 1: Exact binomial tests comparing vaccination rates pre-pandemic in the general United States population (“Vaccination Rate (Population)”) to post-pandemic vaccination rates for dialysis patients within the Brooklyn and Manhattan VA hospitals (“Vaccination Rate (Dialysis Group)”).
Table 2: Secondary analysis using generalized estimating equations compared vaccination rates pre- and post-pandemic. This analysis controlled for age, race, and time on dialysis within the Brooklyn VA population. Positive regression coefficients indicate higher post-pandemic vaccination rates and, conversely, negative regression coefficients indicate lower post-pandemic vaccination rates.
Vaccination is an essential component of the optimization process for kidney transplant candidates [7]. This study aimed to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the vaccination rates among the kidney transplant candidates. Our primary results indicated that the post-pandemic vaccination rates among the kidney transplant candidates in the combined VA group are significantly less than the 10-year pre-pandemic vaccination rates in the general U.S. population for Hepatitis A, Influenza, Meningococcal, MMR and TDAP. There were no significant differences in the vaccination rates of Hepatitis B, HPV, and shingles. Secondary analysis via the Chi-squared test revealed that among the kidney transplant candidates in Brooklyn VA, the vaccination rate for Hepatitis A significantly decreased after the pandemic, while the vaccinations rates for Shingles, Hepatitis B, influenza and TDAP remained comparable pre- and post- pandemic. After controlling for the patient's age, race and time on dialysis, post-pandemic vaccination rate for Hepatitis A remains significantly decreased in kidney transplant candidates. However, the vaccination rates for Shingles and Hepatitis B increased significantly post-pandemic while the vaccination rates for Influenza and TDAP remained comparable pre- and post-pandemic.
The finding of significant decrease in post-pandemic vaccination rates among the kidney transplant candidates compared to pre-pandemic rates in the general U.S. population is consistent with prior studies that report a similar decline. A study by McDonald and colleagues found that the vaccination rates for childhood vaccines, especially the MMR vaccine, had an overall decline pattern in England during the first 15 weeks of 2020 [11]. Similar declines in childhood vaccination rates have also been observed in many countries including the United States, Scotland, Israel and Indonesia [3, 11-13, 16]. A report that compares Michigan’s vaccination rates in May 2020 with 2016-2019 has found a sharp decrease in vaccination rates for all vaccines recommended between the age of birth to 24 months, except the initial dose of Hepatitis B, which is often given in the hospital shortly after birth [13]. The California Department of Public Health also reported a greater than 40percentage decrease in pediatric vaccinations in April 2020, compared to the same period in the previous year [17].
Although these studies are targeting a different population than our study, the reasons contributing to the decline in vaccination rates may be similar. In order to minimize the spread of COVID-19 and the burden on the healthcare system, different countries have implemented a variety of public health measures, such as social distancing, lockdown, suspension of vaccine campaigns, and stay-at-home orders [3, 13]. While beneficial for the prevention and control of COVID-19, these measures also decreased people’s accessibility to vaccines and led to delay in routine care. Furthermore, other factors, such as diversion of medical resources from non-emergent care and the fear of COVID-19 exposure could have also made it harder for people to get routine vaccines [2]. In the United States, Hepatitis A vaccine is recommended before traveling to endemic areas [18]. It’s possible that the travel restriction imposed during the pandemic also contributed to our finding of decreased post-pandemic Hepatitis A vaccination in the secondary analysis.
From the authors’ perspectives, it would be reasonable to think that in adults, the vaccines that require relatively frequent reinjection, such as the influenza vaccine, would be more affected by the pandemic and thus have decreased vaccination rates. However, it is not necessarily the case in kidney transplant candidates. Compared to the general U.S. population before the pandemic, the kidney transplant candidates have significantly decreased post-pandemic vaccination rates for not only Hepatitis A and influenza, but also MMR, Meningococcal, and TDAP vaccines. While the decrease in Hepatitis A vaccine can also be potentially explained by travel restriction, the decrease in the vaccination rates for MMR, Meningococcal and TDAP requires further explanation, as they are generally recommended before adulthood in the United States and does not require frequent reinjection after the only dose is given, or first series is completed. For example, the MMR vaccine is recommended to be administered as a 2-dose series (at 12-15 months, and then age 4 to 6) and does not require additional booster. Our findings may suggest that the significant difference between the vaccination rates in kidney transplant candidates and the general U.S. population is not a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather a reflection of a pre-existing vaccine disparity from long before the pandemic. This is especially concerning as these routine vaccines are not only important for the immunocompromised kidney transplant candidates, but also as a required part of their optimization process for the transplant. The delay or lack of vaccination is thus creating a barrier for kidney transplant, which can be the ultimate treatment for end stage renal disease in these patients. Interestingly, after controlling for demographic factors and time on dialysis, the vaccination rates for Shingles and Hepatitis B have significantly increased post-pandemic in this group. The high rates for Shingles may be attributed to it being a single dose in adulthood, compared to others that must be continuously checked and updated due to multiple doses. Regarding the Hepatitis B vaccine series, despite being a multi-dose series, it may have higher rates due to the smaller period of time between each dose compared to those of Hepatitis A or MMR [19]. These trends also demonstrate that other variables, such as racial background or accessibility to vaccines, may also impact a patient’s preference for which vaccines they are willing to take. Overall, our results demonstrate that the effort to improve vaccination rates in kidney transplant candidates may require a comprehensive approach that possibly involves both vaccine education and systematic policy changes.
There are many possible barriers to vaccination that can be especially prevalent in this population compared to the general United States population. For example, ongoing medical treatment and chronic medical conditions are associated with lower vaccination rates partially due to less opportunities for vaccination [20, 21]. Additionally, these patients are more likely to receive care from specialized physicians who may be less likely than primary providers to suggest vaccination [20]. Under vaccination is also prevalent in older populations such as this one, as our population had an average age of 69 years. Although older adults are more susceptible to vaccine preventable diseases, target vaccination rates are often not met due to people's attitudes and beliefs regarding vaccinations, questioning about vaccine safety and effectiveness, perceived susceptibility to disease, and not being aware of a need for vaccination. Improvement in vaccination rates can occur with public educational campaigns and by introducing communication between this at-risk population and healthcare providers regarding risks and benefits of vaccination, especially given their immunocompromised state [20, 21].
There are several limitations in our study. First, we have a relatively small sample size, which may not be representative of the larger population and thus, limit the generalizability of our results. Additionally, this study only looked at two VA hospitals in New York City, and the results may not be applicable to kidney transplant candidates at other hospitals or in other regions. The primary results of the study focused on the previous 10-year vaccination rates in the general population compared to the post-pandemic rates in the VA dialysis population. To be most representative, the 10-year vaccination rate would come from a similar cohort from the VA and/or dialysis population. Additionally, there is a question of comparing the 10-year vaccination rates to not only post-pandemic, but also pre-pandemic values as this can further inform to what degree the pangemic had on vaccination rates. However, pre-pandemic vaccination rates were not available from the Manhattan population, so this analysis was not done.
This study demonstrated an overall decrease in post-pandemic vaccination rates among the kidney transplant candidate’s pre-pandemic vaccination rates in the general U.S. population. These findings highlight the need for improved vaccination education and policies targeting kidney transplant candidates, who may have lower vaccination rates compared to the general population due to pre-existing disparities exacerbated by the pandemic. Thus, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccination rates among kidney transplant candidates is made clear through this study, underscoring the need for targeted efforts to improve vaccination access and utilization in this vulnerable population. Future studies should aim to identify the underlying reasons for low vaccination rates in this population and develop interventions to improve vaccination rates.
No conflicts reported
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
