AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Chat with us
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2642-9756/176
1 Department of Anesthesia, ICU, and pain management – Cairo University, Egypt.
2 Department of obstetrics and gynecology – AlAzhar University, Egypt.
*Corresponding Author: Ahmed Abdelkader Eltabakh, MD, Department of O obstetrics and gynecology Al-Azhar University, Egypt.
Citation: Mohamed A. M. Donya, and Ahmed A. Eltabakh, (2022), Intrapartum Epidural Anesthesia and Obstetric Outcome in Nulliparous Women with Term Labor: An analysis of 2 years’ Experience, J. Women Health Care and Issues. 5(5); DOI:10.31579/2642-9756/176
Copyright: © 2022, Ahmed Abdelkader Eltabakh. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 30 May 2022 | Accepted: 13 June 2022 | Published: 22 June 2022
Keywords: intrapartum epidural anesthesia; nulliparous women; term labor
Aim: to ascertain whether labour profiles and delivery outcomes of nulliparous women who received epidural analgesia were comparable to those of women whose labour was managed with alternative forms of pain relief.
Patients and Methods: a prospective, randomised, controlled clinical study carried out in Saudi German and Elhussine University hospitals. Recruitment was open to 100 nulliparous women planning a vaginal delivery of a term singleton foetus.
Results: 100 women, with gestational age of 37–41 completed weeks, were chosen at random to receive either continuous epidural analgesia (EPI) or alternative forms of pain relief (NEPI). Compared to the EPI group, the NEPI group's labour took less time to deliver (P<0.05). The first stage's mean duration was 3.7 ± 1.1 hours compared to 4.8 ± 3.1 hours (P < 0.05), while the second stage's mean duration was 102.4 ± 9.3 minutes compared to 132.1 ± 15.8 minutes (p < 0.05). The mean NEPI dose of oxytocin was 10.5 ± 2.3 units, while the mean EPI dose was 15.6 ± 2.5 units (p < 0.05).
While NEPI groups had higher rates of spontaneous vaginal deliveries and caesarean sections than EPI groups, NEPI groups required fewer surgical deliveries overall (p < 0.05). VAS scores during labour were less significantly in EPI group (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Regardless of their intention to labour, nulliparous women use epidural analgesia frequently. Other pain management techniques are linked to a slight but statistically significant decrease in the average length of labour and the rate of surgical delivery in women who do not plan to use epidural analgesia as their primary analgesic modality.
One of the most common pains is labour pain, which may have an impact on both the mother and foetus by causing a number of neurophysiological changes, including an increase in maternal oxygen stress hormones, an increase in blood pressure, and a decrease in foetal oxygen transport [1]. One of the best methods for giving expectant mothers superior intrapartum analgesia at the moment is epidural analgesia (EA) [2, 3]. Parturients who request EA during labour now make up 20–70% of all deliveries, a significant increase from previous years [4–7].
The impact of EA and pain relief during childbirth on maternal and neonatal outcomes has been studied since EA was first introduced into the field of labour analgesia. It is debatable, though, how EA affects labour pain relief. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the positive analgesic effects are associated with a number of negative outcomes, including longer labour times, a rise in instrumental vaginal deliveries, and emergency caesarean sections [8–11]. The research that has been done on the connection between EA and neonatal outcomes is conflicting when it comes to the analgesic effects on the infant [12–14]. Furthermore, it's unclear if the rise in maternal or newborn morbidity is a result of EA.
Research on the effects of anaesthesia on the outcomes of mothers and newborns is still ongoing. Future and ongoing research in these fields may enhance physicians' capacity to customise obstetric anaesthesia care. This study sought to ascertain the impact of EA on maternal-neonatal outcomes with regard to labour duration.
Between January 2020 and January 2022, Elhussine University and Saudi German hospitals hosted this prospective randomised controlled clinical experiment. The Institutional Ethics Committee provided prospective approval for this trial's conduct. During the antepartum phase, 100 nulliparous women with a singleton foetus who planned to deliver vaginally, were selected from the hospital's prenatal clinics. At first, written materials describing the research and the possible intrapartum analgesic choices were given to the women. The criteria for recruitment eligibility were a cervical dilatation of ≥ 4 cm, a gestational age of 37–41 completed weeks, a willingness to be assigned to either research group, and the absence of a contraindication to epidural analgesia.
This study's objective was to evaluate the potential impacts of The ladies were divided into two groups: the epidural analgesia group (EPI) and the nonepidural group (NEPI). Women assigned to the NEPI group were urged to take control of their labour with medical guidance and to refrain from using epidural analgesia. Among the pain management techniques used were nitrous oxide inhalation, injectable pethidine (1.5 mg/kg maternal body weight), and non-pharmacological pain reduction techniques. It was recommended that women assigned to the EPI analgesia group use epidural analgesia as their main method of pain management during childbirth.
At the beginning of the trial, pain was measured using a 0–100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). From then on, pain was measured every two hours, and during the second stage of labour, every hour. Vaginal exams were conducted to assess the progress of labour on admission, before analgesia was administered, before oxytocin was started, and every 2-4 hours after that. An active management of labour protocol was followed. Amniotomy was carried out either at the start of oxytocin induction or after increasing cervical dilatation was seen and it was thought that amniotomy would be safe when the foetal head was applied to the cervix.
For the purpose of augmentation or induction of labour, oxytocin was started at a rate of 2 mU/min and increased incrementally by 2 mU/min every 30 minutes, up to a maximum of 36 mU/min. When there was no increasing cervical dilation over a period of 2-4 hours, ineffective labour was identified. When sufficient uterine activity failed to cause the foetal head to descend or the cervical dilation to proceed, dystocia was detected. When possible, all mothers had continuous electronic foetal heart rate monitoring.
During the course of the trial, a total of 100 nulliparous women were enrolled, and they were randomised to receive either EPI or NEPI analgesia.
Between the two groups, there were no variations in obstetric or demographic characteristics (Table 1).
| Parameter | Group NEPI (50 cases) | Groups EPI (50 cases) | P value |
| Age | 22.7 ± 3.1 | 22.5 ± 2.9 | > 0.05 |
| Gestational age | 39.5 ± 1.6 | 38.9 ± 1.4 | > 0.05 |
| BMI | 21.5± 2.4 | 21.1 ± 2.6 | > 0.05 |
Maternal education
|
31 19 |
30 20 | > 0.05 |
Smoking
|
7 43 |
6 44 | > 0.05 |
Antenatal complications
|
1 2 1 12 1 |
2 2 1 13 1 | > 0.05 |
| Induction of labor | 9 | 8 | > 0.05 |
Table 1: Comparison of the Demographic parameters of the study populations
Compared to the EPI group, the NEPI group's labour took a shorter total time (Table 2). Both the first and second phases of labour showed this variation in length. When the first analgesic was administered, the groups' cervical dilatation was comparable between the two analgesia groups. At an hour into labour, there were significant differences in VAS pain scores between NEPI and EPI during the early, late, and second phases of labour.
The groups varied significantly in their need for oxytocin augmentation during labour. Compared to the EPI group, the NEPI group required a considerably lower amount of instrumental administration (P < 0>
Maternal fever in labour (temperature > 37.5°C) was substantially related with epidural analgesia, and the necessity for maternal urine catheterization during labour was much higher in the EPI group. There were no discernible variations between the groups' short-term results or newborn biometric characteristics (Table 2).
| Parameter | Group NEPI (50 cases) | Group EPI (50 cases) | P value |
| Mean rate of active 1st stage (≥ 6 cm) in hours | 3.7 ± 1.1 | 4.8 ± 3.1 | < 0> |
| Duration of 2nd stage in min | 102.4 ± 9.3 | 132.1 ± 15.8 | < 0> |
| Cervical dilatation on admission | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 4.3 ± 0.4 | > 0.05 |
VAS
|
56 62 65 |
31 30 35 |
< 0> |
| 38 10.5 ± 2.3 | 49 15.6 ± 2.5 |
<0> |
Delivery mode
|
31 4 4 11 |
24 9 10 7 |
< 0> |
| Birth weight (kg) | 3.1 ± 0.57 | 3.2 ± .61 | > 0.05 |
| 5 min Apgar score <7> | 12 | 11 | > 0.05 |
| NNICU admission | 4 | 4 | > 0.05 |
| Postpartum hemorrhage | 5 | 6 | > 0.05 |
| Maternal postnatal length of stay (hours) | 19.4± 2.6 | 18.5± 2.9 | > 0.05 |
| Maternal urinary catheter need | 2 | 12 | < 0> |
| Maternal fever | 3 | 11 | < 0> |
Table 2: Comparison of the labor parameters of the study populations
Labour is an unpleasant event for most women. Analgesia can take many different forms: nonpharmacological analgesia (such as local heat, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, massage, showers, baths, acupuncture), systemic analgesia (such as inhaled nitrous oxide and intramuscular or intravenous opioid), or regional analgesia. The latter is usually provided by a trained health professional, such as a nurse. Because epidural analgesia provides excellent pain relief, women and obstetricians have welcomed it and are using it more frequently. Its possible negative consequences have received less attention until lately. There has been debate over the past ten years about a possible detrimental effect on labour progress, since an increase in the frequency of dystocia has led to a higher rate of caesarean sections. The effectiveness of non-epidural analgesic treatments in labour has been compared with epidural analgesia in many randomised controlled studies (15).
The results of this study showed that a longer duration of the second and overall phases of labour was linked to epidural anaesthesia (EA). This also had an impact on the rate of instrumental deliveries without any significant negative effects on the mother or the newborn, and, interestingly, it also reduced the number of caesarean sections.
Our findings conflict with recent research that found that having epidural anaesthesia (EA) during childbirth does not raise the percentage of vaginal births (spontaneous or instrumental) and that it is safe for both moms and foetuses [15, 16]. A study also found that EA did not influence the likelihood of caesarean delivery. This analysis also revealed that EA did not seem to have an instant impact on newborn status as assessed by Apgar scores or on the decision to admit the child to neonatal critical care [17].
Similarly, we discovered that while the non-epidural group's second stage of labour was shorter than the epidural group's, there was a lesser rate of instrumental delivery, higher rate caesarean sections, and similar newborn outcomes in both groups. Nevertheless, in contrast to our findings, earlier research shown that although a longer second stage of labour may raise the percentage of vaginal deliveries, it may also increase the morbidity of both mothers and newborns [18]. Certain obstetric nurses request that the rate of epidural infusion be decreased or stopped in order to enhance the mother's exertive efforts during the second stage of labour, as they are worried about a protracted labour and its unfavourable consequences [19].
Some researchers discovered that the length of the second stage of labour was unaffected by bupivacaine administered continuously epidurally. This result suggested that the impact of the second stage of labour should be correlated with the concentration of epidural local anaesthetics in a dose-response manner [20]. The results of these authors are consistent with prior research showing that parturients may have adequate and safe analgesia at minimal local analgesic doses of either epidural sufentanil or ropivacaine, with a low frequency of adverse effects [21]. More research is required to determine the possible dose-response mechanism of EA on the success of the second stage of labour.
Women using epidural analgesia during delivery showed a non-significant tendency towards an increase in caesarean section rates, according to a small research [22]. A 1998 study described randomly assigning nulliparous women in spontaneous term labour to either epidural or intravenous narcotic analgesia. The women receiving epidural analgesia showed significant prolongation of both the first and second stages of labour, greater requirements for oxytocin augmentation, slower rates of cervical dilatation, an increased rate of foetal malposition, and an increased rate of caesarean section when compared to the group receiving opioid analgesia. The primary cause of the noted rise in the rate of caesarean sections was dystocia. The short sample size, early termination, and statistical problems raised by this research have all been challenged [23].
Because the authors only examined compliant patients in their analysis, selection bias might have influenced the results. The study revealed a noteworthy correlation between epidural analgesia and many adverse outcomes such as prolonged labour, chorioamnionitis, higher oxytocin administration rates, and operational vaginal birth, which carries a twofold increased chance of caesarean delivery. The authors came to the conclusion that using epidural analgesia to control labour increased the need for obstetric intervention [24]. Trials, that have been conducted, have made an effort to address the methodological shortcomings of the first research by employing intention to treat and adjusting for intrapartum variables that could affect the duration of labour. In the presence of epidural analgesia, several studies were unable to detect a statistically significant increase in the rate of caesarean sections [25,26].
Leighton BL and Halpern SH conducted a systematic review and found that there was no difference between the epidural and parenteral groups in terms of the 5-min APGAR score, umbilical PH level, or foetal heart rate abnormality. However, the parenteral group had a higher need for neonatal naloxone and a 1-min poor APGAR score [27]. According to the results of another investigation, a labour epidural may reduce the APGAR score at one minute but not at five [28]. There was no indication of a significant difference in the 5-min APGAR score between neonates born to women with epidurals and those treated with opiates, according to the Cochrane study by Smyth R, Howell C [29].Improved Apgar scores at one minute, no change at five minutes, and a decreased requirement for newborn naloxone administration have all been linked to epidural analgesia [30, 32].One RCT that found no significant differences in the 5-min APGAR scores between the epidural and control groups [32] further supports this.
Additionally, there is debate about whether labour epidural cause an increase in non-infectious maternal fever, while the precise mechanism is unknown [33]. Many speculate that the correlation between epidural and mother fever could be due to changes in heat production and dissipation brought on by epidural analgesia, and that neonates born to mothers who received epidurals and those who did not do not differ in the incidence of foetal sepsis [34,35].
While identifying the individuals that do not require bladder catheterization is critical, it is as crucial to ascertain which populations do. Researchers looked at the risk variables that put women at risk for postpartum urine retention (PUR) in a prior study. They discovered that women who underwent substantial vaginal trauma, had an extended length of epidural anaesthesia, or had too few intermittent catheterizations during labour were more likely to acquire PUR. Although the small sample size from a single hospital hampered this study, it did investigate factors other than intermittent catheterization that lead to PUR and indicates that continuous catheterization may be necessary for certain women undergoing prolonged epidural anaesthesia [36].
In an effort to refute the notion that continuous catheterization was preferable to intermittent catheterization, researchers set out to investigate the effects of intermittent vs continuous catheterization on the duration of labour in a fundamental study. The length of labour did not change clinically significantly according to the bladder draining technique employed. It was discovered that intermittent catheterization was marginally less costly than continuous catheterization. The analysis of labour length, cost, and nursing preference was conducted; however, the infectious potential of each technique was not investigated. Notably, the whole duration of labour was examined rather than just the second phase, which can vary depending on whether labour was induced or spontaneous [37].
It was discovered that the length of the second stage of labour was not statistically affected by the method of bladder catheterization. Surprisingly, however, it was found that women who underwent intermittent catheterization or were able to urinate on their own following epidural anaesthesia experienced less side effects associated with catheter placement [38].
A lengthier initial stage of labour has been linked to EA [39]. Even in prospective, randomised trials, this result holds true when bias-prone retrospective studies are disregarded. A meta-analysis of research comparing epidural and parenteral opioids was carried out by Halpern et al. in 1998. The results showed that the epidural group had a first-stage duration that was 42 minutes longer (weighted mean difference [MD], 95% confidence interval [CI], 17–68 minutes) [40]. It is yet unclear what theorises behind this correlation. It's interesting to note that if neuraxial analgesia is started before to 4-cm cervical dilatation, several writers have subsequently observed reduced first-stage durations [41-43].
A Cochrane study from 2014 found no evidence to support the beneficial effects of early epidurals on reducing labour duration [44].
The Cochrane evaluation of trials comparing labour with and without an epidural by Anim-Somuah et al. is still the most recent, excellent analysis of the impact of EA on the labour course. The first stage was 32 minutes shorter in the opioid groups (95% CI, 18–46 minutes) in the authors' evaluation of research comparing EA with opioid analgesia; however, the same tendency did not appear in trials comparing LEA with placebo or no analgesia [45].
The findings of a sizable retrospective cohort research that looked at the second-stage durations of over 42,000 vaginal births in a population of parous and nulliparous women were released in 2014 by Cheng et. al. for nulliparous (median duration, 120 vs 47 minutes; P<.001) and multiparous (median duration, 38 vs 14 minutes; P<.001) patients, the authors observed that the second stage was longer in the EA group than in the no-EA group. The degree of prolongation was even more pronounced at the 95th percentiles in both groups. The study concluded that this discovery had to be taken into account when determining what a normative labour trajectory is [46]. Because of its retroactive design, it should not be construed as proving a causal relationship between longer second stage and EA, as has been previously established. However, even in RCTs, there could be minute but consistent signs of EA delaying the second stage of labour. In comparison to the parallel opioid-only groups, EA groups had an average second stage that was 15 minutes longer (MD, 95% CI, 9–22 minutes) according to Anim-Somuah et al.'s Cochrane comprehensive review [45]. However, this effect did not show up in trials that compared EA with placebo or no analgesia. This might be as a result of different physiological variables influencing the second stage of labour than the first.
Theoretically, voluntary and involuntary expulsive attempts may be hampered by local anesthetic-induced motor block, lengthening the second stage. A 2017 double-blind RCT of 400 parturients assigned to either continuation of low-concentration EA through delivery or discontinuation at full cervical dilation showed no difference in duration of the second stage or mode of delivery between the arms [47]. This effect is likely mitigated with low-concentration EA maintenance solutions. A reassuring foetal health throughout is arguably more significant than any quantitative assessment of stage duration [48]. Importantly, no higher risk of unfavorable short-term neonatal outcomes was mentioned for the EA groups in Anim-Somuah's review [45].
Nulliparous women will continue to need epidural analgesia until a very effective non-epidural analgesic option is discovered. Healthcare professionals should talk to nulliparous women about the possibility of intervention following epidural administration.
Neither a fund nor a conflict of interest existed.
SPSS for Windows 20.0 must be used for analysis. For numerical parametric variables, data should be given as range, mean, and standard deviation; for numerical non-parametric variables, range, median, and interquartile range; or for categorical variables, number and percentage.
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.
