AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/jsrbi.2021/006
1 former assistant professor of neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
2 CEO of Pertexa.com
*Corresponding Author: Nelson Hendler, Former Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Citation: Nelson Hendler, and Kishor Joshi, (2021) Predicting Abnormal Medical Tests, on a Symptom by Symptom Basis, Using the Large Analytic Bayesian System (LABS): A Bayesian Solution Applied to Diagnostic Test Management. J. Scientific Research and Biomedical Informatics, 2(1); Doi:10.31579/jsrbi.2021/006
Copyright: © 2021 Nelson Hendler, 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: 08 February 2021 | Accepted: 22 February 2021 | Published: 28 February 2021
Keywords: large analytic bayesian system;
Earlier research described the development of a Large Analytic Bayesian System (LABS) which uses Bayesian analytics to list, on a symptom by symptom basis, the likelihood of having abnormal medical testing from a list of possible medical tests associated with a symptom, or cluster of symptoms. LABS produces a rank ordered list of medical tests, comparing the symptom(s) with the frequency and severity of abnormal medical tests. Seventy-eight medical charts with evaluations including all pertinent medical tests, and a completed Diagnostic Paradigm with 2008 possible symptoms were reviewed. On a symptom by symptom basis, medical test results in the chart were compiled using the Large Analytic Bayesian System (LABS) and created a rank ordered list of abnormal medical tests from a list of possible 107 medical tests. This resulted in a 2008 by 107 matrix, which was analyzed by the use of a program called the Diagnostic Test Manager. The results clearly demonstrated that physiological testing, such as root blocks, facet blocks and provocative discograms had nearly double the frequency of abnormalities compared to anatomical tests, such as X-ray, CT scans and MRIs in the same patient. This evidence-based approach will help physicians reduce the use of unnecessary tests, improve patient care, and reduces medical costs.
The medical literature abounds with articles which report a misdiagnosis rate ranging from 35% to 67% for a variety of disorders, including pneumonia, and heart disease, low back and neck pain, and headache (25, 4, 5, 15). Primary care physicians missed 68 out of 190 diagnoses (35%) according to a 2013 study, with pneumonia and congestive heart failure the most commonly missed [1]. The two leading causes for misdiagnosis were ordering the wrong diagnostic tests (57%), and faulty history taking (56%) [1].
Diagnostic errors lead to permanent damage or death for as many as 160,000 patients each year, according to researchers at Johns Hopkins University [1]. Not only are diagnostic problems more common than other medical mistakes—and more likely to harm patients—but they're also the leading cause of malpractice claims, accounting for 35% of nearly $39 billion in payouts in the U.S. from 1986 to 2010, measured in 2011 dollars, according to Johns Hopkins (1).
Misdiagnoses of some diseases range from 71% to 97% (RSD, electrical injuries, and fibromyalgia) [2-5]. This high rate of misdiagnosis is costly to insurance companies and other payers, as well as to employers of chronic pain patients, where 13% of the workforce loose productive time, estimated to cost industry $61 billion a year [6]. Furthermore, misdiagnosis creates protracted treatment and psychological problems for the patients themselves. Of all the misdiagnosed disorders, the most prevalent problem is chronic pain, which, according to the Academy of Pain Medicine, accounts for 100,000,000 patients in the United States alone [7]. The annual cost of health care for pain ranges from $560 billion to $635 billion (in 2010 dollars) in the United States, which includes the medical costs of pain care and the economic costs, related to disability, lost wages and productivity [7].
Insurance companies and physicians could improve patient care if they had a mechanism which would address the two leading cause of misdiagnosis: faulty history taking and ordering the wrong medical tests. [1]. Therefore, a valuable tool for any health care system would be a questionnaire which could provide accurate diagnoses, and, based on the accurate diagnoses, predict the outcome of an expensive medical laboratory tests, to allow physicians to determine, using “evidence based medicine,” which tests would be diagnostic and which test would be of no value. This concept is best exemplified by the Ottawa Ankle Rules, and Ottawa Knee Rules, developed in Canadian emergency rooms. They developed a questionnaire, using “predictive analytic techniques,” which could predict which patient would or would not have abnormal ankle or knee X-rays. When the use of the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules was applied in emergency rooms, for the selection or denial of patients for ankle or knee X-rays, it decreased ankle and knee radiography up to 26 percent, with cost savings of up to $50,000,000 per year [8-11]. This significant savings was just in the city of Ottawa, and just for ankle and knee pain. If these techniques were applied to other cities and other conditions, the extrapolated savings would be billions of dollars a year.
Later research by the group from Ottawa focuses demonstrated that expert system evaluations, based on predictive analytic research, which were more accurate in predicting the results of cervical spine X-rays, and CT, than unstructured physician judgment [12-14].
These same “predictive analytic” techniques allowed physicians from Mensana Clinic and Johns Hopkins Hospital to develop a Pain Validity Test which could predict with 95% accuracy which patient would have moderate or severe abnormalities on medical testing, and predict, with 85% to 100% accuracy, who would have no abnormalities, or only mild ones [15-18].
Past research reports from Mensana Clinic indicate that 40% to 67% of chronic pain patients involved in litigation are misdiagnosed [19-20]. When evaluating complex regional pain syndrome, (CRPS), formerly called reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), Hendler found that 71% of the patients, and Dellon found that 80% of the patients, who were told they had only CRPS I, actually had nerve entrapment syndromes [2,3]. These errors in diagnoses are costly to the patient and the insurance industry alike, since they prolong or result in inappropriate treatment.
Most physicians use an MRI, which is test used to detect anatomical abnormalities, to determine disc damage in the spine. However, the medical literature shows that the MRI has a 28% false positive rate, and a 78% false negative rate for detecting spinal disc damage, compared to a provocative discogram. [21,22]. Therefore, the physicians from Mensana Clinic and Johns Hopkins Hospital supplemented the anatomical MRI findings with physiological testing, such as provocative discograms, facet blocks, and root blocks, which are typically not used by most physicians. Donlin Long, MD, PhD, former chairman of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital, used these physiological tests in a group of 70 patients who previously had normal MRI, CT, and X-ray (anatomical tests), and were told by their treating doctors that nothing more could be done to help these patients. When properly diagnosed, 95% of the patients required physiological testing, and 63% required surgery [23]. Using these techniques, 93% of the patients receiving good to excellent relief after proper diagnosis and correct surgery [23]. Additionally, Johns Hopkins Hospital saved 54% a year on its workers’ compensation expenses, with the simple expedient of having all of Johns Hopkins Hospital employees injured on the job seeing only Johns Hopkins Hospital doctors [24]. instead of physicians in the local community, where the misdiagnosis rate was 40-71% [2,19,20].
The Maryland Clinical Diagnostics (MCD) Diagnostic Paradigm is a questionnaire, containing 72 multi-part questions, with 2 to 74 possible responses to a question, for a total of 2008 possible answers. These questions duplicate the questions asked during an evaluation process for a patient with chronic pain, by former faculty members from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Asking these questions and recording answers to these questions can take a physician 50 to 60 minutes to complete. The test is then computer scored and interpreted. The MCD Diagnostic Paradigm questionnaire is administered over the Internet (www.MarylandClinicalDiagnostics.com).
Each answer is scored on a spread sheet. The Maryland Clinical Diagnostic Paradigm was designed to detect 60 diagnoses and 44 differential diagnoses most commonly seen after workers’ compensation and auto accident (post-traumatic) injuries.
In a published research report, the MCD Diagnostic Paradigm accurately replicated the diagnoses made by staff members of Johns Hopkins Hospital staff members 96.2 % of the time [25]. The validity of this test is borne out by outcome studies which report that the diagnoses from the Diagnostic Paradigm and Treatment Algorithm can predict intra-operative findings with 100% accuracy [26].
Historically, physicians take a careful history, derive a diagnosis and differential diagnosis, and use medical testing to confirm or reject the various diagnoses. However, a shift in the medical evaluation paradigm has occurred. Physicians are now relying more on medical testing rather than a careful history. In fact, the time a physician spends with patients averaged 11 minutes, with the patient speaking for about 4 minutes of the 11 minutes [27] Therefore, this increasingly prevalent process, which we deplore, follows the format of first getting a list of the symptoms, then getting medical testing pertinent to the symptoms to establish or eliminate diagnoses, and finally reaching a diagnosis, i.e. using medical testing to make a diagnosis. Unfortunately, with an inadequate history, the chance of an erroneous diagnosis increases, leading to the selection of incorrect medical testing. The technique we describe augments the latter paradigm of truncated history taking, and provides evidence based medicine for selecting the correct medical test, to supplement inadequate history taking.
METHODS
For decades, traditional database application design approaches were attempted to classify and organize large amounts of available medical data. Our Bayesian approach offers a solution to a dilemma faced when the authors attempted to categorize and rank this statistically congruent data group of 660,000,000 data points presented for analysis. This data group is simply too large and complex for a standard database application. To manage that amount of data would require terabytes of dynamic storage, thus making a Bayesian type solution for even the largest of computing platforms impractical. A new application, titled Diagnostic Test Manager, is the result of recent developments in science and machine intelligence, which involve computer aided process optimization. This new approach allows Diagnostic Test Manager or DRM, to be hosted on a typical PC desktop computer with rapid, almost instant, response and analysis.
For this evidentiary predictive application, the authors randomly selected 78 completed Mensana Clinic medical charts as a starting point during the software application development and functional demonstration phase. The completed medical charts included a patient symptom questionnaire (Diagnostic Paradigm) with 72 questions, and a total of 2008 possible multiple-choice answers which rate the type, frequency, and location of the patient’s pain. As a result of the diagnoses reached by evaluating these symptoms, there were 107 medical tests which could be administered. The medical test results were ranked from Within Normal Limits (WNL), Mild, Moderate, or Severe/Abnormal indications. It should be noted that doubling the number of charts of the initial group, which represented 147,000,000 data points, increased the predictive accuracy of DRM by only ~2%. Mensana Clinic (which Business Week listed as one of the top 8 best pain centers in the United States, along with Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic and Johns Hopkins Hospital) [28], was operated by Johns Hopkins Hospital staff members, who ordered sophisticated laboratory tests not commonly ordered by other physicians. This resulted in a collection of medical data that is not typically available at almost any other medical center or from treating physicians. It is highly unlikely that the data obtained from these charts can be duplicated. Thus, the results of the process are unique, exhaustive, and proprietary.
DRM accumulated all the answers to the Diagnostic Paradigm for all 78 patients. The range of affirmative answers was 18 to 1,237 of the 2008 possible answers, depending on the type of injury the patient sustained. If the patient only had a nerve entrapment in the wrist, the patient had very few positive answers to the questions. On the other hand, if the patient has been in a severe automobile accident and had pain in the neck, both arms, and both legs, the patient would have many more answers to the questions. DRM listed all the positive answers to the Diagnostic Paradigm which had been marked by all patients. Obviously, for the most common type of injury there would be more data points for certain answers, since there would be more patients with those symptoms.
Fifty-two of the patient charts represented patients with a complete evaluation with all recommended testing completed, while the remaining charts represented patients with at least 50%-95% of all recommended tests completed. Charts with less than 50% of the tests completed were not included in this research. Also, excluded from the research sample were patients who had only an evaluation, but no medical tests, patients who had less than 50% of the recommended testing performed, patients who had a chronic pain problem which was not covered by the diagnostic assessment of the Diagnostic Paradigm, such as genital pain, facial pain after a face lift, rectal pain, or nipple pain after breast augmentation.
The DRM showed the specific medical test results, of the 107 possible medical tests, which were administered to each patient. DRM associated these medical test results to the answers for each of the patients. The basic logic is that patients who responded to symptom questions are going to have a similar spectrum of test responses. This forms evidence-based data for optimal test performance decisions. These data can be displayed using histograms, for visual recognition, and a simple Excel spread sheet, for a numerical representation.
DRM automates the assessment of a benchmark instrument which compiles a matrix comparing the answers on the MCD Diagnostic Paradigm to the results of the medical testing, in much the same manner the Ottawa Ankle and Knee rules did for ankle and knee X-rays, and the Pain Validity Test did for objective medical testing in chronic pain patients. However, DRM provides a broadly expanded clinical set of data.
Based on this analysis, a data base is created which rank orders the likelihood of a test being positive for a given set of symptoms. The data organization for this reporting process is straight forward and simply the recordation of a specific question’s choice. The data storage action accumulates all of the patients’ medical test results for each of the specific answers. This resulting evaluation is a numerical count of the medical test abnormalities found for each answer. The number of abnormal medical tests associated with each of the possible answers can be displayed as a graph or refined into a MS Word/Excel compatible report.
RESULTS
The DRM results revealed the rank ordered tests, from most frequently abnormal, to least frequently abnormal for each symptom a patient had for all 75 patients. Clusters of symptoms typically seen for the most common diagnoses also were evaluated. Some of the most common diagnoses symptoms and the abnormal medical test rank order are shown below in Table 1. The percentage represents the number of abnormal tests obtained for a patient with a specific symptom as a percentage of all tests of that type performed on a patient with that symptom. There are various reasons that not all of the patients with certain symptoms received all of the appropriate testing: 1) insurance would not pay for the procedure, 2) the patient was afraid of the interventional testing, 3) the test could not be scheduled before the patient departed, 4) there were anatomical abnormalities which prevented the insertion of a needle into a disc space, 5) there was no clinical indication to order a provocative discogram, for example because just neck pain is not associated with discogenic neck pathology. Therefore, only the actual number of patients receiving the test is recorded and is represented by the N which follows the type of test.
There are two ways to represent the results of this comparison. The first is a frequency histogram, and the second is an Excel spread sheet.
Figure 1 below represents the frequency histogram for all medical test results for the single symptom, “My neck pain is constant.” There are many etiologies to this single symptom, such as a herniated disc, thoracic outlet syndrome, radial nerve entrapment, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical facet syndrome, to name a few. This accounts for the variety of abnormal medical tests for just a single symptom. Additionally, a patient may have more than one symptom, and symptoms related to other areas of the body. A patient injured in an auto accident may have neck and back pain but the frequency histogram reports all abnormal test a patient has, even though just one symptom is being examined.
Table 1 below shows these data in an Excel format of abnormal tests for a single symptom, eliminating abnormal tests for the lower body, for the sake of clarity. Auto accident cases frequently have hyperextension injuries, which produce thoracic outlet syndrome, and accounts for the high level of abnormal vascular flow studies in the arms, when in Roos position. This position detects post-traumatic vascular compression [29,30]. In addition to damaged discs, other disorders, such as radial nerve entrapment, radiculopathy, and cervical facet syndrome produce neck pain.
When symptoms are aggregated, such as “pain and numbness into the thumb and index finger,” the dynamic changes. This may represent a subset of patients with just neck pain, i.e., of all patients with neck pain, not all have “pain and numbness, and pins and needles into the thumb and index finger.” This can be seen in radial nerve entrapment, thoracic outlet syndrome, C5-6 radiculopathy, C5-6 herniated disc, etc.
Symptoms of thumb and index pain and numbness:
In right thumb - Numb
In right thumb - Pins and Needles
In right thumb - Constant Pain
In right index finger - Numb
In right index finger- Pins and Needles
In right index finger - Constant Pain
These symptoms are compatible with a radial nerve entrapment, C5-6, and or C4-5 damage disc and associated radiculopathy, and elements of thoracic outlet syndrome, and overlaps with median nerve entrapment. Refer to the small example presented in Figure 2 and Table 2, in which the example patient had constant pain in the thumb and index finger which also was also numb and had pins and needles. DRM shows that 24 patients with some or all of these symptoms, when aggregated, had an abnormal provocative discogram at C3-C4 58.3% of the time, an abnormal provocative discogram at C4-C5 62.9% of the time, and an abnormal provocative discogram at C5-C6 51.8 % of the time. However, in 32 patients who had an MRI of the neck for these same set of symptoms, only 28.1% had a moderately or severely abnormal MRI, only 14.1% had an abnormal X-ray, and 33.3% had an abnormal 3D-CT. Additionally, 100% of the 12 patients with symptoms of radial nerve entrapment had an abnormal radial nerve block, and the root blocks from C4-C7 had positive results which ranged from 73-88%. From these data, a physician can determine which test will be most productive in confirming his or her diagnosis and will quickly recognize the rank order of positive testing as an aid in establishing a diagnosis.
DISCUSSSION
The DRM serves as the benchmark against which symptoms of an individual patient can be compared. DRM is a stable and statistically valid tool that can evaluate any new patients’ Diagnostic Paradigm questionnaire and the specific answers they have compared to the large data base of medical test results. This resulting individual test evaluation can offer a numerical count of the patient’s potential test results and select the medical test most likely to be abnormal based on the highest frequency of this test. The rank ordering of medical test results declines based on frequency of abnormal results. This can be used to predict which test is most likely to be abnormal for which symptom.
In a practical clinical application, symptoms of an individual patient can be compared to the DRM’s data point system. Then, abnormal medical tests results can be predicted by comparing individual symptoms against the specified symptoms for DRM analysis.
Individuals from a clinical setting can have their medical symptoms compared against the expected outcome of abnormal medical testing based on the data analysis by DRM. The results of the analysis will show that a predicted medical test will be abnormal for a certain symptom or grouping of symptoms. DRM has the ability to accumulate various symptoms, typically found in most disorders, to give overall expected medical test results for that constellation of symptoms. From this research, the percentage chance of a test being abnormal in any given patient can be predicted from the Bayesian Medical Accumulator. As an example, a typical report would say:
“In a compilation of 634 patients, from the Large Ordered Bayesian State Application (LOBSA), who had the same symptoms as the patient, 79% of them had abnormal finding on the provocative discogram, 54% had positive root blocks at C4-5, 51% had positive facet blocks at C4-7, 4 % had abnormal EMG/Nerve conduction velocity testing, 31% had abnormal CT, 28% had abnormal MRI, and 2% had abnormal X-rays.”
This list of expected results will allow a physician or insurance carrier to determine, in a rank ordered fashion, the most productive test results which would be anticipated, through the least likely. More importantly, any test not listed on the expected testing list could be assumed to not have ever been ordered for a patient with the same symptoms as the example patient and, therefore, be totally unproductive.
What was immediately evident from these data is the value of physiological testing compared to anatomical tests when evaluating a patient with chronic pain. Anatomical tests, such as MRI, CT, and static X-rays, had a low percentage of abnormalities, because they merely take pictures. Physiological tests, such as stellate ganglion blocks, lumbar sympathetic blocks, provocative discogram, root blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and facet blocks, had much higher positive findings, because they physiologically do something to the body, and the response is recorded [31]. Since pain is a physiological condition, a physician cannot take a picture of pain. Physiological testing is designed to administer a test, to see if it modifies, increases, or reduces, the pain for a patient. Anatomical tests do not do that.
The importance of obtaining abnormal test results rests with the ability to provide care for a patient. Clearly, abnormal testing produces an “actionable” event, i.e., something which a physician can address and correct if possible. By providing a physician with a list of what would be expected to be the most abnormal tests, rank ordered down to the least likely to be abnormal gives a physician a check list of tests to order, which would be the most likely to provide an opportunity for intervention, and treatment. Unnecessary testing or non-productive testing would be reduced or eliminated. Moreover, it helps a physician recognize a diagnosis which may have been overlooked and consider it in the differential diagnosis. The net results will be improved patient care, reduced treatment time and greatly reduced medical costs.
Discliamer/Conflict of Interest; Both Dr. Hendler, and Dr. Joshi have a financial interest in the Diagnostic Test Manager.
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.
I would like to offer my testimony in the support. I have received through the peer review process and support the editorial office where they are to support young authors like me, encourage them to publish their work in your esteemed journals, and globalize and share knowledge globally. I really appreciate your journal, peer review, and editorial office.
Dear Agrippa Hilda- Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, "The peer review process was very quick and of high quality, which can also be seen in the articles in the journal. The collaboration with the editorial office was very good."
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the support and efficiency provided by the editorial office throughout the publication process of my article, “Delayed Vulvar Metastases from Rectal Carcinoma: A Case Report.” I greatly appreciate the assistance and guidance I received from your team, which made the entire process smooth and efficient. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, contributing to the overall quality of the final article. I am very grateful for the high level of professionalism and commitment shown by the editorial staff, and I look forward to maintaining a long-term collaboration with the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
To Dear Erin Aust, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for the opportunity to have my work published in this esteemed journal. The entire publication process was smooth and well-organized, and I am extremely satisfied with the final result. The Editorial Team demonstrated the utmost professionalism, providing prompt and insightful feedback throughout the review process. Their clear communication and constructive suggestions were invaluable in enhancing my manuscript, and their meticulous attention to detail and dedication to quality are truly commendable. Additionally, the support from the Editorial Office was exceptional. From the initial submission to the final publication, I was guided through every step of the process with great care and professionalism. The team's responsiveness and assistance made the entire experience both easy and stress-free. I am also deeply impressed by the quality and reputation of the journal. It is an honor to have my research featured in such a respected publication, and I am confident that it will make a meaningful contribution to the field.
"I am grateful for the opportunity of contributing to [International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews] and for the rigorous review process that enhances the quality of research published in your esteemed journal. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort of your team who have dedicatedly helped me in improvising changes and modifying my manuscript. The insightful comments and constructive feedback provided have been invaluable in refining and strengthening my work".
I thank the ‘Journal of Clinical Research and Reports’ for accepting this article for publication. This is a rigorously peer reviewed journal which is on all major global scientific data bases. I note the review process was prompt, thorough and professionally critical. It gave us an insight into a number of important scientific/statistical issues. The review prompted us to review the relevant literature again and look at the limitations of the study. The peer reviewers were open, clear in the instructions and the editorial team was very prompt in their communication. This journal certainly publishes quality research articles. I would recommend the journal for any future publications.
Dear Jessica Magne, with gratitude for the joint work. Fast process of receiving and processing the submitted scientific materials in “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. High level of competence of the editors with clear and correct recommendations and ideas for enriching the article.
We found the peer review process quick and positive in its input. The support from the editorial officer has been very agile, always with the intention of improving the article and taking into account our subsequent corrections.
My article, titled 'No Way Out of the Smartphone Epidemic Without Considering the Insights of Brain Research,' has been republished in the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The review process was seamless and professional, with the editors being both friendly and supportive. I am deeply grateful for their efforts.
To Dear Erin Aust – Editorial Coordinator of Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice! I declare that I am absolutely satisfied with your work carried out with great competence in following the manuscript during the various stages from its receipt, during the revision process to the final acceptance for publication. Thank Prof. Elvira Farina
