AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Jose Luis Turabian, Health Center Santa Maria de Benquerencia Toledo, Spain.
Citation: J L Turabian. (2020) Polypharmacy: volume or value, quantity or quality? The high quantity originates low quality. There is no adequate and valuable Polypharmacy. General medicine and Clinical Practice. 3(1); DOI: 10.31579/2639-4162/25
Copyright: © 2020 Jose Luis Turabian, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 19 June 2020 | Accepted: 12 September 2020 | Published: 15 September 2020
Keywords: drugs; older adults, polypharmacy; drug utilization; drug therapy; prescribing pattern; general practice
All patients, especially elderly patients, those with certain pathologies, those with multimorbidity, or those who live in institutions, are exposed to polypharmacy. The prevalence of polypharmacy is high (18-30%) and the prevalence of excessive polypharmacy (10+ drugs) is 12%. Polypharmacy affects between 40% and 50% of all older adults. The incidence rate of polypharmacy is 20% person-years, ranging from 17% in individuals aged 65–74 years to 33% in those aged ≥95 years. From this point of view, polypharmacy seems to be a concept of quantity or volume of prescriptions. It can lead to serious adverse events related to a wide variety of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs): the frequency of ADR is 6% when a patient takes two medications, 50% when he takes five and almost 100% when he takes eight or more medications. Of every 100 courses of drug treatment, there are 20 adverse drug ADRs, between 5 and 25 of clinically observable DDIs and between 15 and 50 potential DDIs, which arrive to 100 in geriatric patients. But on the other hand, low-quality pharmacological care reports are not uncommon. About 60% of patients may be exposed to at least one potentially inappropriate medication: benzodiazepines, psychotropics, proton pump inhibitors, analgesics (including opiates), laxatives, NSAIDs, antacids, etc. Adverse health outcomes related to inappropriate medications for the population, and especially the elderly, include falls, strokes, delirium and death. The quantity of drugs as a defining concept of polypharmacy implies poor quality. The more drugs that are prescribed to a patient, not only there are more possibilities of inappropriate prescriptions or of little value, but even suitable prescriptions tend to lose their indication, and from a certain level of quantity or volume of prescriptions, the increase IDDs and ADRs makes their value decrease in such prescriptions, and they begin to be inappropriate and give rise to poor quality. In other words, there is no adequate and valuable polypharmacy; the high quantity originates low quality.
Polypharmacy is the concomitant use of several drugs by a single patient [1]. It often reflects the coexistence of many chronic diseases (multimorbidity), including chronic diseases (eg, diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, osteoarthritis, depression, benign prostatic hypertrophy, etc.), acute conditions (eg, infections), and symptoms (eg, pain), which accumulate with age. Consequently, polypharmacy is considered an indicator of multimorbidity [2, 3].
In addition, the application of evidence-based prescribing guidelines designed for the management of single disease to individuals with multimorbidity can result in complex drug regimens [4-7]. So, the number of drugs is higher among older people than among middle-aged adults [8]. The use of multiple drug treatments can be clinically appropriate if they improve health and quality of life. However, it poses important challenges to clinicians because many older adults are exposed to polypharmacy beyond the point where drug therapy is beneficial [9-14]. That is, therefore, the concept of the use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) or of "polymedicated patient" varies depending on the source consulted, but the basic definition seems to be quite simple: the prescription of more medications than are clinically appropriate. All patients, especially elderly patients, those with certain pathologies, those with multimorbidity, or those who live in institutions, are exposed to polypharmacy [15-17].
From this point of view, polypharmacy seems to be a concept of quantity or volume of prescriptions. It is potentially problematic because it can lead to serious adverse events related to a wide variety of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). But on the other hand, low-quality pharmacological care reports are not uncommon. Adverse health outcomes related to inappropriate medications for the population, and especially the elderly, include falls, strokes, delirium and death [15, 18]. And so, it could be thought that the main problem of polypharmacy derives from the fact that some of these prescriptions include some inappropriate, of little value, not indicated or contraindicated, which give rise to the problem of the dangers of polypharmacy.
In addition, polypharmacy is an important cause of increased health costs, both by the use of drugs and indirectly by the iatrogenic effects of pharmacological interactions, adverse drug reactions, and greater morbidity and hospitalizations [4, 16]. Therefore, it is imperative to monitor and optimize the use of medications, especially in general medicine which is the level of care where the prescriptions of different providers are received, to minimize adverse outcomes related to the use of medications to improve the quality of care, as well as for possible cost savings and improve clinical outcomes [19].
In this sense, in some places the volume of polypharmacy data is given prominence, as in primary care in Spain, where general practitioners (GPs) are informed of the frequency of patients with polypharmacy in their patient list, what allows to see the great discrepancy and variability of this prevalence among GPs: it can vary from 4-5% until 18-30% according to GP, in the same geographical area and with lists of random and similar patients. So, it is hypothesized that prevalence of polypharmacy does not justify itself exclusively by the presence of the multimorbidity or of elderly people, neither is randomly distributed; polypharmacy does not depend on the size the GP 'patients list (large lists may have little polypharmacy and small lists a lot of polypharmacy). Therefore, it is imperative to monitor and optimize the use of medications in general medicine [15].
On the other hand, a great variation between geographical areas has also been reported [20]. And also variations of polypharmacy have been reported according to the pathologies: The most common multi-drug combinations is to treating manifestations of metabolic syndrome [21] and the cardiovascular diseases (31%) followed by the infectious diseases (24 %) and gastrointestinal disorders (24%), and the lowest prevalence of polypharmacy in dermatological diseases (1% -2%), and infectious diseases (20%) [21].
But, there is another point of view that gives more importance to the value of prescriptions than to their volume. There are experiences in which are suggested that paying for the value over the volume is considered a key part of reducing the cost of prescription drugs. It is about the health system maintaining value-based drug coverage, and that include only those medications that an independent source considers valuable [22].
In this scenario, where exists the dichotomy of seeing and assessing polypharmacy as a matter of drug volume, or as a matter of drug quality, this article, which is a personal view, aims, based on a selected narrative review and the author's experience, has as a goal to reflect, conceptualize and synthesize the elements that constitute polypharmacy and show some clues to apply them in daily work, especially in general medicine
Volume of the polypharmacy
In general, polypharmacy has been defined in quantitative terms, although there seems to be no consensus on where to establish the limit from which we would be talking about polypharmacy, and in any case they are almost always arbitrary criteria. For some authors, taking only two medications would be polypharmacy, and for others it would be the daily consumption of four, five or even eight drugs. The most widespread number seems to be that of 5 drugs used chronically, a figure from which, there is a relationship with the inappropriate use of medicines. It should be noted that the frequency of adverse drugs reactions (ADR) is 6% when a patient takes two medications, 50% when he takes five and almost 100% when he takes eight or more medications.
So, drug-related problems are common in general medicine, and even more in aged care. Despite all the progress in medical care, including care for the elderly, it is still reported that drug-related problems occur frequently (and very often in elderly patients), are important factors for hospitalization and reduced quality of life in older adults [15]. It can therefore be said emphatically that problems related to medication, and especially to polypharmacy, are common in adults (especially among elderly patients) and it can cause harm [5, 23-25].
One common consequence of polypharmacy is the high rate of ADRs. An ADR is any response to a drug that is harmful and unintentional, and that takes place at doses that are normally applied in humans for the prophylaxis, diagnosis or treatment of diseases, or for the restoration, correction or modification of physiological functions. This term also includes all the harmful clinical consequences derived from the dependence, abuse and misuse of medications, including those caused by use outside the authorized conditions and those caused by medication errors.
Polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse drug-related events, especially in older adults [26-28]; first of all because a higher number of drugs come a higher risk of harmful DDIs [29]; Further, because the high prevalence of chronic multimorbidity in old age leads to an enhanced risk of drug–disease interactions [30-32].
The prevalence of polypharmacy is high, and could reach 20%. But, the main thing is that there is a great variability among general practitioners (GPs), which can vary from 4-5% until 18-30% according to GP, in the same geographical area and with lists of random and similar patients. Thus, the main cause of polypharmacy (of excessive use of drugs) is the professional; the prevalence of polypharmacy does not justify itself exclusively by the presence of the multimorbidity or of elderly people, neither is randomly distributed [15]. In high-income countries, population-based surveys and cross-sectional studies have shown that polypharmacy affects between 40% and 50% of older adults [33-35].
Several risk factors have been identified, such as recent nursing home admission, number of prescribers, and frailty. Recent studies have also suggested an inverted U-shaped association between age and number of drugs, with a pronounced decline in the burden of medications after the age of 85 years. However, only few of these studies had the possibility to account for the confounding effect of chronic multimorbidity (confounding by indication), thus most likely overestimating the role of sociodemographic risk factors. Moreover, surprisingly little is known about incident polypharmacy, which is the development of polypharmacy over time. This lack of evidence from longitudinal, prospective studies limits our understanding of the epidemiology of polypharmacy and most likely leads to underestimating the true burden of medication use among older adults. Previous studies have shown that, on average, polypharmacy affects between 40% and 50% of all older adults. It has also been reported that the prevalence of polypharmacy (5+ drugs) is 44%, and the prevalence of excessive polypharmacy (10+ drugs) is 12%. The incidence rate of polypharmacy is 20 per 100 person-years, ranging from 17% in individuals aged 65–74 years to 33% in those aged ≥95 years. The incidence rate of excessive polypharmacy is 8 per 100 person-years (36).
Many ADRs are due to DDIs, but others cannot be strictly assigned to pharmacological effects, so other non-specific mechanisms, such as nocebo effects or cultural factors, also give rise to ADRs experienced by patients (37). But, in any case, DDIs are a significant cause for ADRs. The risk of a DDI in any particular patient increases with the number of co-existing diseases and the number of drugs prescribed. ADRs and drug allergies- as a subset of ADRs- make a significant public health concern, complicating 5 to 15% or even 20% of therapeutic drug courses. They may result in diminished quality of life, increased physician visits, health care costs, hospitalizations, and even death (38).
In general, the assessment of the severity and preventability of ADRs reveals that 1% of ADRs are severe and 2% are preventable reactions (39). The incidence of ADRs has particularly increased among patients 65 years and older with as many as 1 in 20 persons (40). Of every 100 courses of drug treatment, there are 20 adverse drug ADRs, between 5 and 25 of clinically observable DDIs and between 15 and 50 potential DDIs, which arrive to 100 in geriatric patients (41). However, there are certain aspects of ADRs that are not well known (such as the exact efficacy and safety profile of the drugs in older patients, because the older patients are not included in the large randomized trials, and so much of the information used to determine the age-associated risks of drugs come from observational studies). So, the incidence and prevalence of serious ADRs in the elderly could be not properly rated (42).
In any case, the incidence and prevalence of ADRs and DDIs increases with the number of drugs used. It can be admitted that ADRs occur in approximately 20% of the patients in drug treatment (20). One-quarter of these patients have possible adverse events or diminished treatment effectiveness that may have been at least partly caused by DDIs (43).
DDI is the modification that the action of a medicine undergoes due to the simultaneous presence of another in the organism. The effects of the DDIs are:
1. The appearance of pharmacological adverse reactions
2. The decrease in the effectiveness of the treatment
Too, the incidence of DDI increases with the number of drugs used and with age. The prevalence and incidence of clinically observable DDIs is between 5-10% and up to 25% of patients on pharmacological treatment, and potential DDIs is at least three to five times higher (from 15% to 50%), and even a nearby figure to 100% in geriatric patients on pharmacological treatment. Pharmacodynamic DDIs are more prevalent (80%) than pharmacokinetic. However, the incidence of potentially serious DDIs is relatively low (perhaps less than 1%) among ambulatory patients. But, the absolute number of patients involved is high, its serious potential risks, and its tendency is to increasing rapidly. A persistently obvious fact is that the incidence of ADRs and DDIs increases with the number of drugs used. The use of 5 drugs used chronically is a figure from which there is an independent relationship with the inappropriate use of medicines: the frequency of ADRs is 6%-20% when a patient takes two medications, 50%-80% when he takes five, and almost 100% when he takes eight or more medications (24, 25, 41, 44, 45).
Polypharmacy quality
Low-quality pharmacological care reports are not uncommon. Adverse health outcomes related to medications for the population, and especially the elderly, include falls, strokes, delirium and death, as well as a wide variety of adverse drug reactions and drug-drug interactions (18). On the other hand, only a limited number of studies have been published explicitly using indicators of quality use of medicines, including the construction of indicators for monitoring the quality of prescriptions in general practice (46).
Anyway, various data of quality use of medicines have been reported, or indicators for measuring quality of medicines in clinical areas (geriatrics and obstetrics) or in specific diseases, such as diarrhea and pneumonia, quality indicators for assessing antimicrobial prescribing and proton pump inhibitors written by GPs, or quality indicators for antibiotic treatment of respiratory tract infections in general practice, among others (47-50).
The combination of the expansion of elderly populations and concerns about variability in the quality of care has driven the development of sets of indicators of quality of care with the aim of monitoring and improving the use of medicines. Indicators are the gold standard for evaluating the quality of many aspects of health care. More specifically, quality indicators of medication-related care are summary measures that should be used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the use of medication that affects the quality of care and patient outcomes. However, it is common that quality indicators of medical care do not always focus on the use of medications. This lack of recognition of medicines in the current sets of health care quality indicators may reflect an uncertainty (especially in the sector of care for the elderly, which is the segment with the highest prevalence of polypharmacy), with respect to the best way to evaluate use of drugs (51).
It has been reported that about 60% of patients may be exposed to at least one potentially inappropriate medication (identified by the Beers criterion), 80% of patients may be exposed to drugs that contribute to the Drug Burden Index (DBI)> 0, and 90% of patients may be exposed to polypharmacy (ie ≥5 medications). Exposure to potentially harmful medications, as identified by DBI> 0 and by polypharmacy (i.e. ≥5 medications) is associated with lower self-rated quality of life (52).
At this level of primary care, can be frequent inappropriate prescribing, for example of renally cleared medications in elderly patients; Thus, has been communicated that virtually 100% of older patients have at least one drugs-related problem as a factor to be highlighted, the chronic renal failure has a prevalence of 50% in these patients, and the prescription for renal elimination drugs can be identified in more than 15% of them. All medications can potentially lead to medication-related problems. A greater number of medications received, and the identification of more than 2 medication-related problems in a patient, are signs of very high risk of medication misadventure (15, 57). On the other hand, it has been described, especially in elderly people, the excessive use of high-risk medications associated with falls (70%), medications with moderate to strong anticholinergic properties (50%), benzodiazepines (40%) and antipsychotics (30%) (53-56).
In addition to the elders in the community, patients with dementia, and especially those who live in residential care centers for the elderly, have a particularly high risk of harm with medications. In these patients, polypharmacy has been identified in 90% of them (with a very high average of 10 drugs per person); one third of these patients were prescribed an antipsychotic medication; and it was found that 50% were taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication. The combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants was the pharmacological interaction observed more frequently, and it was prescribed in 16% of patients. Besides the inappropriate use of benzodiazepines and psychotropics in general, this inappropriate use of drugs has been also reported in proton pump inhibitors, analgesics (including opiates), laxatives, NSAIDs, antacids, etc. (15).
The potential harms of some medications can outweigh their potential benefits (inappropriate use of medications). Despite recommendations to avoid the use of potentially inappropriate medications in older adults, their prevalence is high in different settings, including residential care for the elderly. In addition, of course, the use of potentially inappropriate medications (especially for older adults) represents a substantial cost that can be reduced. In addition to the elders in the community, patients with dementia, and especially those who live in residential care centers for the elderly, have a particularly high risk of harm with medications. In these patients, polypharmacy has been identified in 90% of them (with a very high average of 10 drugs per person); one third of these patients were prescribed an antipsychotic medication; and it was found that 50% were taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication (15). Polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse drug-related events in, especially in older adults because the aging process is associated with physiological changes (eg, weight loss, deterioration of liver and renal excretion, decrease of cardiac output, body composition remodelling) that make that older adults are more prone to adverse drug reactions (58-62).
Initiatives have been proposed to address the quality of polypharmacy. In this way, three areas of polypharmacy have been reported that may be subject to special monitoring to improve the value of polypharmacy (63, 64):
1. The use by polypharmacy of multiple anticholinergic medications in older adults
It is known that the anticholinergic burden increases the risk of cognitive impairment in particular, but it is also associated with an increased risk of falls, a greater number of hospitalizations and decreased physical function. Reducing the concurrent use of these medications, including the use of tricyclic antidepressants, particularly nortriptyline, has been proposed as a priority objective.
2. The use of multiple active drugs in the CNS in older adults
It is known that these drugs cause greater risk of falls and fractures when taken simultaneously. Taking one or more of the CNS medications may cause a 1.5-fold increase in the risk of falls, and that risk increases to 2.5 times if two or more medications are taken. In addition, a high dose of these medications can lead to a three-fold increase in the risk of recurrent falls.
3. Concurrent prescription of opioids and benzodiazepines
It is known that taking these two drugs at the same time is associated with a four-fold increase in the risk of opioid overdose and death, compared to the use of opioids without a benzodiazepine
All patients, especially elderly patients, those with certain pathologies, those with multimorbidity, or those who live in institutions, are exposed to polypharmacy. The prescription of contraindicated or potentially inappropriate medications is also common. It must be taking into account that the issue of polypharmacy, and within this, the attention of the quality and meaning of polypharmacy, is a crucial and complex issue. It is crucial because its increase, in relation to the multimorbidity, the over-diagnosis, the medicalization and the increase in costs, shows a rapid growth. It is a complex issue because of the very nature of these variables and because of the inherent difficulties in the criteria and the measurement of quality
The quantity of drugs as a defining concept of polypharmacy implies poor quality (FIGURE 1, FIGURE 2). The more drugs that are prescribed to a patient, not only are there more possibilities of inappropriate prescriptions or of little value, but even suitable prescriptions tend to lose their indication, and from a certain level of quantity or volume of prescriptions, the increase in probability of IDDs and ADRs makes their value decrease in such prescriptions, and they begin to be inappropriate and give rise to poor quality. In other words, there is no adequate and valuable polypharmacy; the concept of polypharmacy makes the quantity of drugs, even of value, causes a reduction in that value, and poor quality, increased risks of yatrogeny, poor health outcomes and increased costs begin to predominate. The high quantity originates low quality.
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.
