AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Chat with us
Review Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2692-9759/134
*Corresponding Author: Franz Porzsolt, Institute of Clinical Economics (ICE), 89081 Ulm / Germany.
Citation: Franz Porzsolt, (2024), Reducing corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialization of academia, Cardiology Research and Reports, 6(5); DOI:10.31579/2692-9759/134
Copyright: © 2024, Franz Porzsolt. 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: 12 August 2024 | Accepted: 19 August 2024 | Published: 28 August 2024
Keywords: covid-9; respiratory diseases; self-care; treatment adherence
.
The British Medical Journal has recently published an opinion paper on "Illusion of Evidence based Medicine" [1]. This paper describes a global problem, the dimension of which only be-comes apparent through the risks that arise as a result of this illusion. The resulting problem may be the three dimensions of “disbalanced health-care (dbhc)”. (a) The health problems of the patients are inadequately solved. (b) Neither the monetary expenditure on health (c) nor the non-monetary burdens to be accepted on individual patients and society are outweighed by the added health and social value of the services provided.
Corrective measures to reduce dbhc were recently outlined in a paper "Comparative effective-ness is the common denominator in health services research: experimental effects are promis-ing, real-world effects are compelling" [2]. The lack of differentiation between the effects generated under experimental study conditions and real-world conditions has been referred to as a "terminology conflict" [3]. Our goal is to integrate complementary strategies and methods into health care that have proven themselves from the perspective of science, patients and so-ciety. This implementation is intended to increase the efficiency of health-care [4, 5] i.e.,
• The quantification of healthcare effects under day-to-day conditions of healthcare
• Without an increase in undesirable non-monetary burden and
• Without increasing the monetary burden on patients and society.
The conventional definitions of CIM did not address the optimization of care under everyday conditions – in contrast to experimental laboratory conditions [e.g., 6 - 9]. The reason for this missing aspect has so far been the lack of a suitable method to detect differences in the quality of care under everyday (pragmatic, but not experimental) healthcare conditions [2, 10]. Proof of real-world effectiveness (RWE) could free CIM from its stigmatizing label of lack of evi-dence and pave new ways of describing the different forms and functions of CIM. Trust in non-stigmatized care methods is likely to increase and effects of combined therapies could be explained.
This review deals with the question of a new challenge to the claim of CIM. In addition to new interventions, CIM could also discuss new conceptual and methodological details. The maximum achievable successes and the unavoidable monetary and non-monetary burdens can be quantified. As an example to confirm the practical importance of this concept, we use a published proposal [11].
The published proposal
Four international cardiology societies (European Society of Cardiology, American Heart As-sociation, American College of Cardiology, World Heart Federation) issued a joint statement proposing a modification of randomized controlled trials (RCT) [11]. This modification is jus-tified by increased administrative requirements and financial burdens, as well as a dispropor-tionately low information gain from conventional RCTs. In a ‘joint opinion’, the design of an adaptive platform study is proposed to replace the traditional RCTs [12] because promising results could be achieved by this study design in different studies [13 - 15].
We agree with the ‘joint opinion’ group's call for a necessary optimization of the standards for gaining knowledge in the healthcare system. Before description of our methodological details, we may mention the supportive framework conditions, the "Ulm heritage", without which we would probably not have been able to cross the boundaries of the traditional way of thinking.
The “Ulm heritage”
The idea of evaluating the results of experimental studies and pragmatic care outside of stud-ies with different tools was triggered in the late 1980s when one of us, a young oncologist, noticed that treatment successes in patients at our own university hospital differed more than marginally from published oncology reports. Nearly a decade passed before a simple idea could plausibly explain the difference. We observed effects in our hospital that occur in eve-ryday care (or Real-World Effectiveness, RWE), whereas journals reported data were that were predominantly generated in experimental studies under strictly controlled conditions describing efficacy (or Proof of Principle; PoP). Although the scientific literature differentiat-ed between "efficacy" and "effectiveness" quite early [16 - 18], the explanations were not user friendly enough to become widely established.
Our research in evidence-based medicine was based on the three questions of Sir Archibald Cochrane and Sir Austin Bradford Hill – "Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it?" – that should be answered before new interventions will be integrated in standardized healthcare [19]. Cooperation with teachers and students in the "ulmer hochschule für gestaltung (hfg)" (Ulm school of design) taught us the rule "Form Follows Function (FFF)"generated by Amer-ican designers and architects [20] and have passed on the demand of the founders of the hfg that the designers should develop universally valid solutions with relevance to social policy [21 - 22]. As citizens of Ulm, we are familiar with many of Albert Einstein’s (*1879 in Ulm) statements, e.g., “Problems cannot be solved with the mindset that caused them”.
These three recommendations of (a) the British epidemiologists, (b) the American designers and architects, and (c) the teachers and students of the former hfg facilitated the development of a three-dimensional strategy and a new method for the evaluation of healthcare perfor-mance. Here we describe some results of the new way of thinking in five themes. Finally, we suggest concrete contributions that CIM could make to reduce the undesirable consequences of the "illusions of evidence-based medicine".
Results in five themes
1.Forms and functions of the three-dimensional strategy
The concept of the three-dimensional strategy is based on the three Cochrane-Hill questions. Each of the responses to these questions is characterized by a specific form (structure) and function.
The response to the first question, "Can it work?", is characterized by the form (structure) of an RCT and represents the objective function of the PoP. The PoP basically reflects the per-spective of clinical research.
The response to the second question, "Does it work?", is characterized by the form (structure) of a Pragmatic Controlled Trial (PCT) and represents the objective function of RWE. The RWE basically reflects the perspective of health services research.
The response to the third question, “Is it worth it?”, is characterized by the forms (structures) of various Complete Economic Analyses (CEA) and represents the function of subjective Value (VAL) of healthcare services from an economical perspective of individual persons and the society (Table 1).
Table 1: Strategy for answering the three Cochrane-Hill questions from the perspectives of clinical research, health services research, and economic research (modified from [24]).
2.The conditions for implementation of care and analysis of outcomes are different
Care. Patient care can be implemented only under two different conditions (or forms of care): either under non-experimental (Nex) and unstructured, natural conditions (of everyday) care or under experimental (Ex) and strictly structured conditions of care.
If some of the subjects were eliminated from an original (Nex) target population to protect the excluded subjects from specific risks of an investigated intervention (by defining exclusion criteria), an artificial (Ex) population will be created. This artificial (Ex) population cannot represent results generated under natural, Nex and unstructured conditions.
Consequently, the effects observed in such a "risk-reduced population” cannot reflect the results obtained under RWC. The effects observed in such a population may describe the Proof of a Principle (PoP) but never the true RWE.
Analysis of outcomes. The results of treatment can be analyzed under three conditions (or forms): (a) under experimental (Ex) and strictly structured study conditions or (b) under non-experimental (Nex) and unstructured, natural (everyday) care conditions either (b1) with or (b2) without determination of the individual “endpoint-specific risks profiles (ESRPs)” of the patients.
The analysis of results under (Exp) experimental and structured conditions of a RCT results in the description of PoP. The analysis under Nex and natural conditions of a PCT (b1) with de-termination of the individual ESRPs of the patients results in the RWE. A systematic analysis of the results under the usual everyday (Nex) non-experimental conditions (b2) is impossible. Under these conditions outside of a clinical trial, only pre-post comparisons on individual pa-tients are possible.
3.Different tools are needed for assessment of outcomes in RCTs and PCTs
An RCT only guarantees the equal distribution of risk profiles. The average risk profiles of different RCTs are usually not comparable due to missing or imprecise description of the se-lection criteria. This unprecise definition of the selection criteria explains the lack of external validity of the results of most RCTs.
In a PCT, each patient is cared for under non-structured, natural everyday care conditions, but evaluated under structured conditions by applying Bayesian statistics. The advantage of Bayesian statistics over randomization is the ability to apply statistical methods under the non-structured conditions of everyday care without altering these natural conditions. The applica-tion of the Bayesian method in healthcare requires documentation of the intervention (thera-py) and all individual risk factors that could affect any of the measured endpoints of a PCT. Based on the categorization of therapies and individual risk profiles, each patient can be as-signed to the appropriate risk class with respect to each of the measured PCT endpoints [3, 10, 23, 24]. This accurate risk classification requires a large number of cases to account for multi-ple variables in one analysis. Patients with identical target diseases should be assigned to a risk class for each of the measured endpoints. This risk class divides this patient's risk of achieving the investigated adverse endpoint as high, intermediate, or low. In addition, the intervention applied is taken into account. The different conditions of healthcare provision and the result-ing functions and forms of the two objectively measurable dimensions of efficacy (PoP) and effectiveness (RWE) are summarized in Table 2.
| Efficacy (or PoP) is measured in a target population whose risk profile is defined by both inclusion and exclusion criteria of an RCT*. | Effectiveness (or RWE) is measured in a target population whose risk profile is defined only by inclusion criteria of a PCT (exclusion criteria do not exist in PCT)*. | |
| Functions of efficacy and effectiveness | Proof of principle (PoP; efficacy) under structured conditions of an experimental study (e.g. RCT) | Real-world effectiveness (RWE) under structured conditions of an observational study (e.g. PCT). |
| Forms (structures) of efficacy and effectiveness | Experimental (Exp) studies (RCTs; for assessment of PoP) differ in 12 criteria from the conditions of everyday care. | Non-experimental (Nex) Pragmatic studies (PCTs; for assessment of RWE) agree in six criteria with everyday care and in four criteria with experimental studies. |
Table 2: Application of the FFF designer rule to explain the different forms (structures) and functions of the two outcome dimensions, efficacy (PoP) and effectiveness (RWE). *Inclusion criteria describe the health problem to be solved, exclusion criteria identify the hurdles to solve the problem [25].
4.Explaining three different outcomes under two different conditions
Table 1 describes the healthcare strategy from three different perspectives. From these per-spectives, three different outcomes can be derived, although the supply can only take place under two different conditions - either experimental or non-experimental healthcare conditions [24]. This apparent conflict can be resolved by a simple explanation. By far the most common form of daily care takes place outside of clinical trials under conditions of "natural chaos" [10]. However, a systematic evaluation of the results is impossible in a “natural chaos” without any measures to structure the available information.
Therefore, a concept had to be applied that can structure the available information without changing the "natural chaos" of care. This apparent squaring of the circle could be solved by two steps. On the one hand, it was possible to distinguish the differences between three con-ditions of health care i.e., care under experimental conditions or under non-experimental con-ditions either with or without systematic recording of the individual patient’s risk profiles. The differences are described by two different functions and twelve different forms (structures) [25]. In addition, we were able to maintain the "natural chaos" by replacing the experimental randomization with non-experimental Bayesian statistics. In simple terms, Bayesian statistics is based on the principle of specifying the prediction of an event by calculating the probability of an expected event, with and without taking into account the factors that can favor or pre-vent the occurrence of the expected event [26].
5.Importance of study conditions and selection criteria
More attention should be paid to the exact description of both the study condition and the selection criteria in clinical trials. It is not possible to distinguish between the detection of PoP or RWE if the conditions (Ex or Nex) under which the study was carried out are not de-scribed. Neither will it be possible to predict the prognostic significance of an intervention if the selection criteria of the investigated target population are incompletely described or com-pletely missing [27]. Both the chosen study conditions and the chosen selection criteria influ-ence the study results via direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are the exact formulation of the study objective, the results obtained, and their interpretation. Indirect effects affect the homogeneity of a study by testing the eligibility of the patients included in a study. When the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the single studies that were included in a meta-analysis are only vaguely defined or even missing, it may be impossible to confirm the validity of the (pre-cisely) calculated results of this metanalysis [28].
Both inclusion and exclusion criteria depend on the study question but have different func-tions. Inclusion criteria of clinical studies should describe the problem to be solved, while ex-clusion criteria should identify the confounders that influence the assessed endpoint in exper-imental trials. Inclusion criteria are required for any form of health-related study as opposed to exclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria exist only in experimental studies, but not in studies de-scribing everyday healthcare, like the PCT or studies describing the subjectively perceived added value of a healthcare service or health-related quality of life [29]. We are concerned that the definition of exclusion criteria contains a risk that has not yet been taken into account. The exclusion criteria may distort the description of the actual risks of interventions, because the approval of drugs requires the detection of effects in experimental RCTs. RCTs report results obtained from patients without any risk factors that may affect the measured outcome except the investigated disease. This highly selected patient population cannot be representa-tive of all patients to whom the results of this RCT are applied.
Here we discuss the motivation to address the “illusion of evidence based medicine” and a possible strategy to solve it.
The motivation to address the challenge.
The comments of various authors confirming the "illusion of evidence-based medicine" and the publication of these comments by the scientific journals [1, 30, 31] supported by the de-mand of international professional societies to develop methods that facilitate the conduct of the necessary studies [11].
Our review confirms the statement of the professional societies. The current gold standard of the RCT is, indeed, no longer suitable for justifying the necessary decisions on health care. The three-dimensional Cochrane-Hill strategy and the topics we elaborated in this review may be related topics of discussion.
We recommend to use the FFF rule of architects and designers for confirmation of the quality of new products of concepts in science. This rule turned out to be useful in solving the termi-nology conflict [3, 29] and in distinguishing PoP and RWE (Table 2). The suggested differ-ences of PoP and RWE may be considered for several reasons.
•RCTs include only a highly selected patient population in which most risk factors in-fluencing the measured primary endpoint (with the exception of the intervention stud-ied) have been eliminated by exclusion criteria. In a PCT, exclusion criteria cannot be applied because they would eliminate significant confounding factors whose influence on outcomes in day-to-day care cannot be prevented.
•An RCT limits the choice of healthcare options to the few interventions that can be compared and interpreted in an experimental study. The PCT does not limit the choice of health care. Each participant selects with their physician the intervention that is ex-pected to produce the optimal results for that patient.
•An RCT is expected to ensure the equal distribution of all risk factors not excluded in the study populations. This, however, can hardly be confirmed because the size of the studied population depends on a large number of variables, e.g., the number of study participants and of risk factors, the effect sizes of risk factors, and their interrelation-ship. The smaller the population studied in an RCT, the greater the risk of unequal dis-tribution will be in the randomized groups. In PCTs, the differences in patient risk pro-files can be successfully managed by stratification according to the individual ESRPs.
•The time and costs of development to market access will be considerably reduced in PCTs for two reasons. The recruitment of patients in a PCT is by a multiple easier than in an RCT and the value of the information collected in a PCT is by far greater than in an RCT.
•The financing of PCTs has to be renegotiated because the care of patients in a PCT is not an experiment. Only the extraction of new scientific knowledge from the results obtained under the conditions of natural chaos requires additional costs. Most of these costs are incurred for the development of the study protocol, because after the target disease has been determined, a list of all risk factors that can distort one of the meas-ured endpoints has to be drawn up, from this study-specific risk list separate risk pro-files are to be defined for each endpoint, with which each patient can be assigned to an endpoint-specific risk group.
•The prediction of the individual's risk-dependent chance of successful care explains the significant difference in knowledge gained by a PCT in contrast to RCT.
As result of our research we may conclude the conception of health care should be based on RWE but not PoP. The scientific details of the concept are described [3, 10, 23, 24]. A sum-mary of the practical aspects to be taken into account when applying the concept in everyday care was published recently [32]. The concept could benefit from the support of colleagues who trust complementary and evidence-based innovations of traditional medicine and are committed to implementing these innovations.
The strategy to solve the challenge.
The links between business and science in the healthcare system will increase rather than de-crease in the future. These connections are driven by two powerful incentives that, depending on administrative control, can increase or decrease successes in both systems. In both systems, the incentives relate to the development and marketing of innovative products and concepts. These products and concepts have a direct impact on economic success. The success of scien-tific achievements in a health care system can only be measured indirectly by the quantifiable health consequences of the gain in knowledge.
The "illusion of evidence-based medicine" verbalized a weakness of evidence-based medicine that needs to be improved. This weakness describes the difference between the theoretical concept and the practical implementation of the evidence-based method. Conflicts of interest are a characteristic of biological variance and are therefore unavoidable. However, the inap-propriate handling of conflicts of interest can be avoided. Table 3 describes the conflicts of interest between science and business in healthcare.
| Functions | Forms (structures) | ||
| Scientific institute | Business enterprise | ||
| Scientific function: knowledge generation | (a) Develop an idea that may solve a problem (b) Express the idea as question in plain language | Institutions with scientific reputation should solve scientific tasks. | |
| Economic function: generation of profit | Institutions with economic reputation should solve economic tasks. | Profit maximization as a prerequisite for survival of a society, considering (a) economic, (b) social and (c) ecological aspects. | |
Table 3: Conflicts of interest between science and business in healthcare can be recognized by the lacking congruence of forms and functions [25].
The conflict between science and business was first addressed in the late 60s and has since spread to new areas and increased in intensity [1, 30, 31, 33]. Patients and health care profes-sionals can only make suggestions, policy makers take decisions [34] e.g., need to decide on the priority of the challenges outlined by Jureidini and McHenry [1]. Patients and health care professionals can only make suggestions. We have drawn up proposals for the application of the American recommendation on “checks and balances”.
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!”
