AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Xiaolei Hu, MD; PhD; Consultant physiatrist Department of Community Medicine and Rehabilitation Umeå University, 901 85 Umeå, Sweden.
Citation: Eva Elgh and Xiaolei Hu (2021). Subjective and Objective Assessments of Executive Functioning among Persons 10 years after Stroke Onset. J. Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. 10(1); DOI:10.31579/2578-8868/219
Copyright: © 2021 Xiaolei Hu, 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: 23 November 2021 | Accepted: 30 November 2021 | Published: 06 December 2021
Keywords: executive function; stroke; cognition; patient-reported outcome measurements; neuropsychology assessment; caregivers
Aim: This study aimed to investigate executive functioning (EF) among patients 10 years after stroke onset through comparing subjective patients’ and informants’ perceptions as well as objective neuropsychological assessments (NPAs).
Materials and Method: One month prior to the neuropsychological assessment, 36 patients and their informants completed the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult Version (Brief-A) around 10 years after stroke onset. The patients’ EF was assessed with verbal fluency (FAS), backward Digit span backward and Trail making test (TMT)-B.
Results: We found no significant differences between patient and informant ratings on EF on a group level, but more patients reported clinically significant executive dysfunctions (T > 65) than their informants. Only poor to slight agreements were observed between the patient and informant ratings of the BRIEF-A. Digit span backward was the only executive test that demonstrated significant improvement of EF 10 years post-stroke in the cohort. Neither patient nor informant ratings on EF showed any significant association with objective EF test performance.
Conclusions: Mismatch patient-informant agreement on perceived executive dysfunction showed no clear association with EF test performance in this study. This may indicate the complexity of EF among persons with stroke at chronic phase.
Impairment of executive function (EF) is a common cognitive sequelae after stroke with profound negative effects on patients’ activity of daily living and participation [1] . The prevalence of executive dysfunction after stroke varies from 19% to 75
Study design and procedure
Data of this study were collected in a single-centre prospective, longitudinal cohort study of stroke survivors with three consecutive follow-ups over a 10-year period after a first-ever stroke. The cognitive functions of stroke survivors were assessed prospectively at 10-year follow-up, then compared retrospectively with data collected 1 week after and 7 months after stroke before the study was planned [2,17]. The study was conducted at a Department of Neuro-Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Umeå. Ethical approval was obtained from the regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå, Sweden, D-nr 2015/144-31.
All young (18 to 65 years) patients who had suffered a first-ever stroke between January 2004 and December 2007 and undergone neuropsychological assessment (NPA) within the first year after stroke were contacted. Participants were informed about the study and provided with written consent forms via letter, and research staff made contact via telephone with all eligible patients in order to improve the recruitment rate. Patients with severe dementia, severe aphasia, severe comorbidity, recurrence of stroke or transient ischemic attack, or other physical or psychiatric disease after first-ever stroke, along with those who were not community-dwelling, were excluded [2]. After a thorough recruitment process taking place from 2015–2016, 49 of the total 102 first-ever young stroke patients with acute NPAs declined, and 15 others were excluded for a variety of reasons. In this study, two of 38 participants were excluded because of missing values in BRIEF-A. Seven participants lived alone without relative. Only 26 informants completed BRIEF-A without missing values. All were native Swedish citizens. The 38 participants provided their written informed consent to participant the study and assessed by NPAs. Baseline data were collected from the Riksstroke registry and from patients’ medical records.
Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Function - Adult Version (BRIEF-A)
For subjective assessment of executive functioning, both participants and informants completed the BRIEF-A one month prior to the scheduled appointment for NPA.
BRIEF-A measure executive functions in daily living through self- and informant assessment [13]. The BRIEF-A consists of 75 items that measure different aspects of EF in the real-life situation. Answers are given on three options (i.e. never a problem =1, sometime a problem =2 and often a problem =3). Three index score were derived: 1) Behavioural Regulation (BRI) refers to the ability to control behaviours and emotions, consisting of subscale inhibit, shift, emotional control and self-monitor; 2) Metacognition (MI) refers to the ability to maintain attention and the ability to solve problems, consisting of subscale initiate, working memory, plan/organize, task-monitor and organization of material; 3) Global Executive Composite (GEC) is a summary scale for all subscales. The American standards were used to convert raw points into T-points [13]. Higher T scores indicate higher degree of executive dysfunction. T scores at and above 65 are considered as clinically significant impairments on EF [13].
In order to objective assess patients’ executive function, three neuropsychological assessments were used in the current study and described below.
Verbal fluency
Phonemic fluency (FAS) is included in the executive test battery Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). The battery is standardized for individuals between the ages of 8 and 89 [8]. In this study, the patients were asked to say as many words as possible starting with a certain letter (F, A and S) for 60 seconds to measure the ability to orally produce words [8].
Digit Span
Digit Span from Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) -IV was used to assess the working memory´s number storage capacity. Notably, WAIS-R and WAIS-III was replaced by WAIS-IV at 10-year follow-up due to practical reason. Previous validation studies have shown that WAIS-IV have the same construction as WAIS-III/R [18] with very high correlation between subscales (r = .82-94) [9]. Swedish norms for WAIS-IV were used as control [9].
Trail making test (TMT) - B TMT-B intends to measure the executive function mental flexibility, i.e. the ability to switch between different stimuli under time pressure [19]. An upper time limit was used (190 seconds) [19].
Data presentation and statistical analysis
Demographic characteristics are presented as Mean ± SD, number with/without number of cases (%) or median (25%- 75% interquartile ranges (IQR)) as appropriate.
Data from Brief-A were analysed using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient was used to measure the agreement between the patient and informant rating of the BRIEF-A (0= poor agreement, 0.2 = slight agreement, 0.4 = fair agreement, 0.6 = moderate agreement, 0.8 = substantial agreement and 1.0 = almost perfect agreement) [20].
The NPA at the early stage were presented at two time-points, i.e. one week and seven months with some missing values. Instead of ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test was chosen for nonparametric multiple comparisons between three time-points because of the relatively small sample size. Each p value was adjusted to account for multiple comparisons with Dunn’s multiple comparisons test.
The level of associations between BRIEF-A and neuropsychological data were explored by using Spearman correlation coefficients. The statistical analyses were performed by using the software product GraphPad Prism, version 6.0 or IBM SPSS as appropriate. P value 0.05 was considered as significant.
Demographic and medical characteristics
Demographic and medical characteristics of the participants at 10-year follow-up after stroke onset are presented in Table 1.
The mean age of participants was 63.8 (SD 10.6) with 50 percentage female participants. Most of the participants (n= 34, 34/37, 92%) had no or only slight disability (mRS= 0-2). Ischemia was the dominate stroke sub-type (79%). Almost half of the participants (n= 17, 17/37, 46%) had more than 12 years education. The more detail characteristics of the participants have been described in the previous studies [2,17].
Comparison of patient and informant rating on the BRIEF-A
Descriptive data from patient and informant ratings of the BRIEF-A were presented in Table 2.
On a group level, there was no median score of any subscale or main indexes of the BRIEF-A over 65 points i.e. the level for clinically significant impairment; but more patients reported clinically significant executive dysfunctions (T > 65) than their informants did. However, the statistical analyses demonstrated no significant differences between patients and informants reporting on any of the subscales or main indexes on BRIEF-A. Similar medians of global executive function (GEC) were rated by patients and informants. A slightly higher score were observed on BRI and MI among patients, but no significant difference.
Cohen k statistics demonstrated poor to slight agreements between the patient and informant ratings of the BRIEF-A (Table 2).
Neuropsychological data
Three NPA test data over 10-year follow-up are shown as median (25%- 75% IQR) in Figure 1. Compared to results at one-week post-stroke, no significant enhancements on working memory were observed at 7 months after stroke onset assessed by WAIS-Digit span [9]. However, striking significant improvements were demonstrated at 10-year follow-up in Digit span (backward) score (8 (6-9.3)) (Figure 1B). However, Verbal fluency (FAS) (34 (25.8-48)) and TMT-B (81 (62 – 116)) at 10-year follow-up demonstrated no significant differences compared to the data at the early time-points, respectively (Figure 1A and 1C).
Associations between subjective and objective EF
No significant association was found between patients perceived
executive dysfunction and any of the tests of executive function (Table 3). Similarly, informant ratings of executive function didn’t show any significant relationship with objective assessments of EF (Table 4).
This study aimed to investigate EF among patients at 10-year after stroke onset through comparing subjective patients’ and informants’ perceptions of EF as well as objective assessments of EF. We found that patient and informant reported EF similarly on a group level, but more patients reported clinically significant executive dysfunctions than their informants did. Mismatches were observed between the patient and informant ratings of the BRIEF-A. Digit span backward was the only executive test that demonstrated significant improvement of EF at 10-year post-stroke in the cohort. However, performance-based EF tests did not demonstrate any significant association with patient nor informant ratings on EF.
Our data presented only subtle executive dysfunction in the participants from both patient and informant ratings on EF, which is congruent with highly independence in daily living reported by the participants. More patients reported clinically significant executive dysfunctions than their informants did. This may suggest that perceived executive dysfunction by patients is not always noticed by their relatives. The current results are also in line with many early studies where discrepancies between patient- and informant-reported EF impairments were demonstrated among patients with dementia or traumatic brain injury [10, 15, 16].
Among three performance-based executive tests, Digit span backward assessing working memory was the only test that demonstrated significant improvement over 10-year post-stroke in the cohort. No significant alteration was observed on mental flexibility (TMT-B) and verbal fluency (FAS) over 10-year follow-up. The reason for these discrepancies on NPA results are not fully understood but the tests measure different aspects of executive function located in different parts of the frontal lobes [21]. One possible explanation is that working memory, but not mental flexibility and verbal fluency, could be trained by active daily living [1, 2]. This is supported by the finding that more than 90% of participants in the cohort were independent in their daily activities. Another possible reason is that verbal fluency and TMT-B, unlike Digit span, have a time aspect as part of the test [9, 19]. This time pressure could make it more difficult for the patient. Furthermore, higher education level among the participants has in a previous study predicted better improvement of working memory, but not mental flexibility or verbal fluency (unpublished data [22]); and in this study a majority had more than 12 years of education.
Neither patient nor informant ratings on EF showed any significant association with objective performance-based EF tests in the study. The very small, non-significant correlations observed in the current study suggested that these three different tests should not be considered equal nor be used interchangeably [10]. Our results were consistent with many previous studies among patients with acquired brain injury or dementia [14-16] but not all [10]. The BRIEF-A provides a more complex, integrated and dynamic information on EF in the daily living [13] while NPA detects specific EF domains in a well-controlled standardized condition [9]. They may thus provide certain complementary information on EF. The clinical implication of the present findings may suggest that persons with stroke need both subjective and objective assessments on executive dysfunction due to its complex nature. It is necessary to performed these assessments in a large amount of stroke patients over a long-term follow-up to confirmation the generalisability of the current findings; and to enhance the knowledge of executive dysfunction after stroke.
The strength of the current study was the very long-term follow-up duration with repeated objective EF assessments at acute, sub-acute, and chronic phases over ten years after stroke onset. However, we are aware of the small number of participants as one of the limitations. Furthermore, stroke characteristics, such as stroke location and size, were not taken into account in the data analysis even though stroke severity is an important predictor of outcomes [23, 24]. This is why it is not possible to generalize the findings to the entire young stroke population. Nevertheless, the current study provided some interesting insights into subjective and objective EF assessments.
We demonstrated that mis-match patient-informant agreement on perceived executive dysfunction showed no clear association with EF test performance in this study. This may indicate the complexity of EF among persons with stroke at chronic phase. Both subjective and objective assessment might provide certain complementary information on EF. A large-scale study is needed to confirm the generalisability of the current findings among stroke patients.
The authors would like to thank each participant and assessor for their patience and time. We also wish to acknowledge rehabilitation coordinator Catharina Elback for her excellent recruitment work.
This study was supported by the Västerbotten County Council and Umeå University (ALF Foundation), the Swedish Stroke Foundation (Stroke Riksförbundet) and the Northern Swedish Stroke Fund (Strokeforskning i Norrland Insamlingsstiftelse).
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
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.
