AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/202
1Consultant Gynecologist & Fertility Specialist, Newlife Fertility Clinic, Epsom – Surrey.
2Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine Al-Azhar University.
3Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine Al-Azhar University.
*Corresponding Author: M. El-Seadawy, Consultant Gynecologist & Fertility Specialist, Newlife Fertility Clinic, Epsom – Surrey.
Citation: Maged El-Seadawy, Hesham Fekry Abou-Sunna, Ahmed Altaf Abbas, (2024), Antral Follicle Responsiveness to Follicle Stimulating Hormone Administration Assessed by the Follicular Output Rate (FORT) May Predict In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer Outcome, J. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, 8(2) DOI:10.31579/2578-8965/202
Copyright: © 2024, Maged El-Seadawy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of The Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 01 February 2024 | Accepted: 09 February 2024 | Published: 22 February 2024
Keywords: follicular output rate; fort; fsh; controlled ovarian hyperstimulation / IVF-ET
Objectives: In search of a qualitative indicator of ovarian function, we sought to determine if antral follicles' reproductive competence is correlated with their Follicular Output Rate (FORT), which indicates how sensitive they are to FSH administration.
Patients and Methods: After ethical committee approval and informed consent from the patients, this Prospective Cohort study was performed on 300 IVF-ET candidates, aged between 20 and 35, who had undergone controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation with comparable beginning levels of FSH and had primary infertility without apparent cause from January 2020 to June 2022 at Al-Azhar University Hospital and in a private IVF unit in Cairo, Egypt. Antral follicle (3–8 mm) count (AFC) and pre-ovulatory follicle (18–24 mm) count (PFC) were performed, respectively, at the achievement of pituitary suppression (before FSH treatment) and on the day of hCG administration. The FORT was calculated by PFC × 100/AFC. FORT groups were set according to tercile values: low (4.3%; n = 13), average (30.7%; n = 92) and high (65%; n = 195).
Results: The odds ratio for clinical pregnancy increases with increasing endometrial thickness, number of collected oocytes, and follicular output rate, with odds ratios of 1.123, 1.121, and 1.312, respectively.
Conclusion: The observed association between IVF-ET result and the proportion of antral follicles attaining pre-ovulatory maturity that successfully react to FSH injection shows that FORT may be a qualitative mirror of ovarian follicular competency. More research with broader inclusion criteria and more tailored techniques is required to verify these findings.
In vitro fertilization (IVF) effectiveness is dependent on regulated ovarian hyperstimulation, which results in a multi-follicular response. Granulosa cells in the follicles release the hormone estradiol (E2). Serum estradiol (E2) is essential for oocyte/follicular maturation and uterine preparation for implantation. It has been shown that 17 beta estradiol causes cytoplasmic maturation of GV oocytes by increasing intra-cytoplasmic calcium concentration; this has been linked to improved fertilization (1).
Granulosa cells that respond appropriately to FSH are not only equipped with functioning FSH receptors, but are also capable of carrying out a series of specialized functions such as signal transduction, steroidogenesis, and cell proliferation and differentiation. This physiological context suggests that antral follicle FSH responsiveness may be a marker of their health and reproductive competence, leading us to hypothesize that patients with a high proportion of FSH-responsive antral follicles are more likely to become pregnant after assisted reproductive technologies (2).
For the pretreatment evaluation of ovarian reserve for predicting response to COH, a variety of dynamic tests (clomiphene citrate challenge test, GnRH agonist stimulation test, exogenous FSH ovarian reserve test) and clinical indicators (age, previous response to COH), endocrine indicators (FSH, E2, inhibin-B, anti-mullerian hormone [AMH]), and ultrasonographic indicators (antral follicle count [AFC], ovarian volume, ovarian vascularity indices) (3) have been recommended. In an effort to optimize a patient's prospective ovarian response and chances of a good treatment result, this enables adequate preoperative counseling and permits adjustment of a patient's treatment regimen (4).
Unfortunately, because it is heavily impacted by the number of tiny antral follicles available before to treatment, the number of pre-ovulatory follicles acquired at the conclusion of COH is not a good indicator of antral follicle sensitivity to FSH. The inconsistent link between the absolute number of developing follicles achieved in COH and the result of IVF-ET may be explained by this unpredictability (5).
The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) recently released a report on clinical pregnancy rates in fresh cycles, which were 28.7% per ovum pick-up and 32% per embryo transfer, whereas thawed cycles had a clinical pregnancy rate of 20.9%. These results demonstrate the ongoing improvements in clinical and laboratory processes (4).
We employed the Follicular Output Rate (FORT) to assess the antral follicles' reactivity to exogenous FSH in an objective manner. The ratio of pre-ovulatory follicles acquired in response to FSH injection to the pre-existing pool of tiny antral follicles is used to calculate this index (6). Thus, the goal of the current study was to examine any potential connections between the FORT and antral follicles' capacity for reproduction, as shown by the quality of oocytes and embryos produced during IVF-ET cycles.
This prospective study was performed in the period from January 2020 to June 2022 in a private IVF unit. It included 300 women with the following criteria:
COH and IVF-ET protocol:
The COH and IVF-ET regimen employed in this study was the long protocol, which was as follows:
FSH, LH, and E2 levels were measured on cycle day two, then monophasic OCPs were started immediately after receiving the laboratory sample for the hormonal profile (day 2) for 21 days, then at day 18 we started subcutaneous injection of GnRH agonist (Decapeptyl 0.1 mg - FERRING) once daily until the day of hCG injection, and diagnostic hysteroscopy was performed on the same day we started GnRH agonist.
Complete pituitary desensitization was confirmed on day 2 of the next cycle by the discovery of low serum levels of progesterone (P4), E2, and LH (baseline), the presence of ovarian cysts was ruled out, and endometrial thickness of < 5>
The antral follicle count was noted, and FSH medication (Fostimon - IBSA) was started at 225 IU/day for at least 5 days, and continued until the day of hCG injection (Choriomon 10000 IU, i.m. - FERRING). Daily FSH dosages have been changed based on E2 levels and/or the number of developing follicles since the sixth day of FSH treatment.
Patients got daily visits after day 6 of COH for ultrasonographic and hormonal exams to determine the optimum timing for hCG injection. The administration of hCG (day of hCG administration; dhCG) began as soon as four pre-ovulatory follicles (18-24 mm in diameter) were seen, and E2 levels per pre-ovulatory follicle were 200 pg/ml, with a total of 3000 pg/ml.
Thirty-five hours after hCG was administered, oocytes were extracted using a stiff (Labotect) catheter and a metal (Wallace) transvaginal ultrasound-guided aspiration needle. Three days later, ETs were carried out.
On Day 2, the best quality embryos were those with four or five blastomeres, 20% anucleated fragments, and no multinucleated blastomeres. Micronized progesterone, 600 mg/day, was given daily by vaginal injection to pregnant women beginning on the evening of ovum pickup and continued until eight weeks of amenorrhea, in order to sustain the luteal phase.
When a gestational sac is seen during an ultrasound scan about seven weeks after the onset of amenorrhea, the pregnancy is considered clinical; if it is still there after twelve weeks, it is considered continuing.
Follicular output rate (FORT) calculation:
Calculation of FORT was as follows:
Ovarian ultrasound scans were done at baseline and on the day of hCG using a 5.0-9.0 MHz multi-frequency transvaginal probe (Sonoace R3, Medison) to assess the number and size of antral follicles. We will carefully count the number of all follicles measuring 3-8 mm in diameter to compute antral follicle count (AFC) and the number of all follicles measuring 18-24 mm in diameter to calculate pre-ovulatory follicle count (PFC) in both ovaries at baseline and on dhCG.
The FORT was determined as the ratio of PFC on dhCG100 to AFC at baseline.
FORT = PFC x 100 / AFC.
FORT and other supplementary study groups are defined. We decided to divide our cohort into three separate FORT groups to facilitate evaluation of the probable link between follicular responsiveness to COH and IVF-ET result. The three FORT groups will be chosen at random based on whether FORT values will be below the 33rd percentile (42%, low FORT group), between the 33rd and 67th percentiles (42-58%, average FORT group), or above the 67th percentile (>58%, high FORT group).
We constructed three more sets of three separate groups based on ages, AFC, and PFC levels to evaluate the prediction of FORT with that of other pre-IVF parameters that may impact result. We will employ a similar technique to FORT (terciles of data distribution) for them. Thus, with regard to women's age, there are three groups: younger (less than 25 years), middle (between 25 and 30 years), and older (more than 30 years); in terms of AFC, there are three groups: low (less than 14 antral follicles), average (between 14 and 17 antral follicles), and high (more than 17 antral follicles) in both ovaries; in terms of PFC, there are three groups: low (less than 6 pre-ovulatory follicles), average (6-7 pre-ovulatory follicles), and high (more than 8 pre-ovulatory follicles) in both ovaries.
Measurements of hormones Using a chemiluminescence approach, an automated multi-analysis system has assessed the levels of serum P4, E2, LH, and FSH.
The characteristics of P4 were as follows: linearity up to 60 ng/ml, a lower detection limit of 0.10 ng/ml, and intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CVs) of 8 and 9%, respectively.
For E2, the intra- and inter-assay CVs will be 8 and 9%, respectively, and the lowest detection limit was 30 pg/ml. Linearity was observed up to 1000 pg/ml. The lowest detection limit and intra- and inter-assay CVs for LH and FSH were 3 and 5%, respectively, and 0.1 mIU/ml.
Statistical methodology:
SPSS version 18 was used to collect, tabulate, and analyze the data. For parametrical data, the standard error was utilized as the measure of variability and the mean as the measure of central tendency. In situations when determining the normality of the data distribution was impossible, medians and minimum–maximum values were employed. When two continuous variables are independent of one another, their connection has been evaluated using correlation; when there is a dependence relationship, it has been evaluated using simple regression.
If the variables are parametric, Pearson's test is performed to find out if the coefficient of correlation is substantially different from zero; if the variables are non-parametric, Spearman's test is employed.
Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables from the low, average, and high FORT; AFC and PFC groups. The two-sided Pearson X2 test was utilized to compare the categorical variables among the three groups in each set.
Using dummy variables derived from terciles, a binary regression model was ran to account for potential confounders, ages, AFC, and PFC in the connection between pregnancy rate and FORT. P-values less than 0.05 were regarded as statistically significant.
Sample size justification:
Sample size was calculated using EpiInfo® version 7.0, setting the power (β) at 80% and the significance level (a) at 0.05. Data from a previous study by Gallot et al., (7), indicated that the average FORT was 50.6% (range, 16.7–100.0%). Clinical pregnancy rates per oocyte retrieval increased progressively from the low to the high FORT groups (33.3, 51.2 and 55.7%, respectively, P ˂ 0.003). Calculation according to these values to produce an even narrower 95% confidence interval produced a minimal sample size of 298 women. Therefore, the total sample size will be approximately 300 cases.
Table 1: Various types of follicular output rate (FORT) in the women who participated
| FORT | Frequency | Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | High | 195 | 65% |
| Average | 92 | 30.7% | |
| Low | 13 | 4.3% | |
| Total | 300 | 100% | |
Table 2: Clinical pregnancy rate among all women
| Clinical pregnancy | Frequency | Percent |
| Yes | 119 | 39.7% |
| No | 181 | 60.3% |
| Total | 300 | 100% |
Table 3: Clinical pregnancy rates among different FORT categories
| Clinical pregnancy | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||||
| FORT category | Average | Count | 13 | 79 | 92 |
| % within FORT category | 14.1% | 85.9% | 100.0% | ||
| % of Total | 4.3% | 26.3% | 30.7% | ||
| High | Count | 105 | 90 | 195 | |
| % within FORT category | 53.8% | 46.2% | 100.0% | ||
| % of Total | 35.0% | 30.0% | 65.0% | ||
| Low | Count | 1 | 12 | 13 | |
| % within FORT category | 7.7% | 92.3% | 100.0% | ||
| % of Total | .3% | 4.0% | 4.3% | ||
| Total | Count | 119 | 181 | 300 | |
| % within FORT category | 39.7% | 60.3% | 100.0% | ||
| % of Total | 39.7% | 60.3% | 100.0% | ||
Chi square test: P value = 0.000 (highly significant)
Table 4: Patient characteristics and laboratory data among low, average and high FORT groups
| Variable | Low FORT (N = 13) Mean ± SD | Average FORT (N = 92) Mean ± SD | High FORT (N = 195) Mean ± SD | P value (significance) ANOVA |
| Age | 31.2 ± 3 | 27.5 ± 4.7 | 28.4 ± 4.2 | 0.012 (NS) |
| BMI | 20.8 ± 2.4 | 21.4 ± 2.3 | 21 ± 2.5 | 0.330 (NS) |
| FSH | 5.1 ± 0.7 | 5.3 ± 1.6 | 5.4 ± 1.4 | 0.488 (NS) |
| LH | 4.6 ± 1.4 | 4.3 ± 1.3 | 4.5 ± 1.4 | 0.638 (NS) |
| AMH | 2.8 ± 1.1 | 2.3 ± 1.2 | 2.5 ± 1.3 | 0.244 (NS) |
Table 5: Patient characteristics and clinical data among low, average and high FORT groups
| Variable | Low FORT (N = 13) Mean ± SD | Average FORT (N = 92) Mean ± SD | High FORT (N = 195) Mean ± SD | P value (significance) ANOVA |
| AFC | 11 ± 3.6 | 8.6 ± 3.6 | 8.9 ± 3.3 | 0.056 (NS) |
| PFC | 4.2 ± 1.4 | 4.1 ± 1.5 | 7.4 ± 3.2 | 0.000 (HS) |
| Number of ampoules | 38 ± 2.4 | 35.2 ± 6.2 | 34 ± 5.4 | 0.017 (HS) |
| Days of stimulation | 11.9 ± 2.2 | 11.8 ± 1.7 | 11.3 ± 1.3 | 0.041 (S) |
| Endometrial thickness (cm) | 8.3 ± 0.4 | 8.1 ± 0.7 | 8.3 ± 0.8 | 0.170 (NS) |
| E2 at trigger | 1044 ± 584.2 | 1150 ± 452.1 | 1757.3 ± 720.7 | 0.000 (HS) |
| Collected eggs | 3.8 ± 1 | 3.6 ± 1.3 | 6.6 ± 2.9 | 0.000 (HS) |
| Fertilized eggs | 3.2 ± 1.4 | 3.3 ± 1.4 | 5.4 ± 2.5 | 0.000 (HS) |
| Transferred embryos | 2.5 ± 0.8 | 2.4 ± 0.8 | 2.8 ± 0.4 | 0.000 (HS) |
| FORT% | 37.6 ± 3.1 | 49.1 ± 4.8 | 83.1 ± 12.36 | 0.000 (HS) |
Table 6: Impact of several factors on the clinical pregnancy rate by binary logistic regression
| Variable | Odds ratio | P value |
| Age | 0.832 | 0.004 |
| BMI | 0.963 | 0.047 |
| Endometrial thickness | 1.123 | 0.032 |
| E2 at triggering | 2.225 | 0.212 |
| Collected ova | 1.121 | 0.033 |
| Number of transferred embryos | 1.322 | 0.321 |
| FORT % | 1.312 | 0.002 |
Since ICSI is the final and most sophisticated step in the infertility therapy process, doctors find it to be a true challenge. While the success rate has improved significantly in recent years, neither the patient nor the doctor is ever satisfied with a success rate between 30% and 40%.
A woman's age, the quality of her sperm, the reason for her infertility, the quantity of injected oocytes, the quality of the transferred embryos, and the total number of embryos transferred are some of the factors that affect the success rate of ICSI. The effectiveness of ICSI is also greatly influenced by the practitioners' training and experience (8).
Before registering a couple for ICSI, it is advisable to discuss the expected success rate with them. Before beginning this treatment, the couple should be aware of their prospects of success given the expense and emotional strain involved (9).
ICSI technique, injection technique, sperm quality, egg quality, and the quantity and quality of transferred embryos are some of the factors that are thought to affect the success rate of ICSI (10).
The remarkable, covariate-independent association between FORT and IVF-ET result is the study's main discovery. Patients with a higher proportion of FSH-responsive antral follicles were more likely to get pregnant following IVF-ET, regardless of age or absolute pre-COH AFC and post-COH PFC.
This confirms the idea that antral follicles' lack of reactivity to exogenous FSH indicates some degree of follicle/oocyte dysfunction (9, 11) and establishes the FORT as a promising qualitative marker of antral follicles.
Accordingly, earlier researchers have noted that more than 40% of atretic follicles are present during the initial days of the follicular phase in the menstrual cycle (12). This percentage is corroborated by the mean FORT values of 70.7% found in our infertile population (Table 3).
Furthermore, the current findings encourage us to reevaluate the COH cancellation criteria based on the output of follicle response to exogenous FSH (FORT) rather than the absolute counting of follicles recruited by the treatment. This explanation helps to explain the reported weak predictability of absolute AFC (13).
Remarkably, standard indicators of ovarian aging, including women's age, AMH, and baseline FSH levels, had no discernible impact on FORT (Table 11).
This supports earlier indirect evidence by indicating that antral follicles do not significantly lose their ability to react to FSH as ovarian age progresses (14). It is noteworthy that the current series observations of decreased AFC in patients with enhanced FORT are consistent with this.
Therefore, rather than a per-follicle decrease of sensitivity to FSH, the poor ovarian response to COH often reported in older women is likely due to a pre-existing depletion of the follicular pool.
However, given the limitations of the FORT index that have been addressed elsewhere, the relevance of the current results should be considered (15). In summary, because their PFC could not be determined, individuals who had stopped their FSH therapy prior to hCG delivery were unable to have their FORT evaluated by design.
If the number of average-sized follicles in the mid-follicular phase of COH is utilized instead of the 18–24 mm follicles on dhCG, more research is required to confirm if FORT is still useful. A move like this can include patients who have promised to cancel back into the FORT computation. Furthermore, it is not always the case that the 3–8 mm follicles prior to COH respond in unison to FSH, as suggested by FORT (16).
This restriction can only be addressed by measuring each follicle's growth individually in response to FSH, which is virtually impossible. Two other methodological approaches were used in its place. Firstly, a GnRH agonist was used to deeply inhibit endogenous FSH in order to minimize follicle size disparities and, to the greatest extent feasible, synchronize follicle development during COH. Secondly, rather large initial dosages of FSH were employed in order to attract as many follicles as feasible despite their pretreatment sizes.
Finally, tight follicle monitoring and ovulation triggering protocols were followed to avoid the potential impact of any improper prolongation of COH time on PFC and, therefore, the FORT calculation. Indeed, all subjects got hCG as soon as 4 follicles attained pre-ovulatory maturity (and E2 levels per pre-ovulatory follicle were 200 pg/ ml), and only those who clearly did not meet this condition were dropped.
In addition, FORT believed that only 18-24 mm follicles successfully responded to FSH on dhCG, despite the possibility that smaller follicles also showed some degree of FSH responsiveness.
However, because very small follicles, which were not countable by ultrasound at baseline, may have also begun their FSH-driven maturation after the start of COH and reached intermediate sizes on dhCG, including average-sized follicles on dhCG in the calculation of FORT may have complicated its interpretation.
Furthermore, further research focused on various follicle sizes will be beneficial in fine-tuning alternative appropriate cutoffs for the derivation of this new measures. These FORT properties, when combined, highlight its immense adaptability and motivate us to continue develop this novel approach.
Future research into various methods of calculating the FORT, namely utilizing different numerators and incorporating patients treated with lower, but potentially more discriminating, exogenous FSH signals, will likely contribute to its therapeutic use.
In conclusion, the current data show that antral follicle response to FSH, as measured by FORT, is favorably associated to IVF-ET outcome in normocycling women with polycystic ovaries. The FORT is therefore a promising qualitative index of ovarian function.
According to Gallot et al. (7), FORT is an objective technique to evaluate the real response of follicles to exogenous FSH that is unaffected by the size of the pre-existing cohort of antral follicles.
Zhang et al. (17) did another study to determine the real accuracy of follicular output rate (FORT) as a predictive biomarker of FSH response and reproductive competence following IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. A total of 1643 cycles were analyzed, including 140 polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients who received ovarian stimulation. In line with our research, they came to the conclusion that among 1503 non-PCOS cycles, FORT gradually enhanced the number of retrieved oocytes and all embryos that could be transferred, as well as the rates of good-quality embryos, embryo implantations, and clinical pregnancies. Nevertheless, in contrast to non-PCOS individuals, FORT were considerably lower in patients with PCOS who achieved clinical pregnancy as opposed to those who did not (0.56±0.21 versus 0.66±0.29, P=0.031).
This novel indicator challenges us to reconsider the traditional COH cycle cancellation criterion based on the absolute number of developing follicles and sheds fresh light on the long-running dispute over the classification of 'poor responders' to COH (18, 19, 20, 21).
Furthermore, the use of FORT in predicting IVF-ET outcome has to be verified in studies that employ more customized methods for COH and hCG delivery as well as larger inclusion criteria.
Furthermore, additional research focused on other characteristics thought to be involved in follicle response to FSH, such as FSH receptor polymorphisms (22) and granulosa cell activity (23), is needed to build on the current findings.
This study was approved by the Faculty of Medicine Al Azhar University, Research Ethics Committee. Each patient was provided a written informed consent for analysis of anonymized data.
Not applicable.
The data is available upon request of the editorial board.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests
No funding was obtained for this study
ME conceived the study and designed it. All authors contributed equally to data collection and data analysis. Manuscript was written by AA and HA. Statistical analysis done by ME. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.
Not applicable
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.
