AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2690-4861/918
1 School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
2 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil.
3 Pediatric Critical Care Center, Child and Adolescent Institute, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
4 Pediatric Critical Care Center, Child and Adolescent Institute, University of São Paulo School of Medicine Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
*Corresponding Author: Bruno Kenzo Harada, School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Citation: Bruno Kenzo Harada, Francisco Soriano Garcia, Michele Luglio, Werther B. de Carvalho, Artur F. Delgado, (2025), Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (Pards) In Sepsis Patients with Chronic Conditions: An Adaptation of the Phoenix Score and Palicc-2 In Chronically Ill Children and Adolescents, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, 30(4); DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/918
Copyright: © 2025, Bruno Kenzo Harada. 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: 14 July 2025 | Accepted: 25 August 2025 | Published: 06 October 2025
Keywords: pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS); septic shock; sepsis, chronic; children and adolescents; Phoenix Score and Palicc-2
Background. acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric intensive care unit. This case series describes five cases in a population of chronically and critically ill children, all of whom presented with a primary infectious insult (sepsis or septic shock) that led to ARDS between 2020 and 2022. Acknowledging the complex interplay between these two clinical entities, the study aimed to simultaneously apply the most recent diagnostic guidelines for ARDS (PALICC-2) and pediatric sepsis (Phoenix criteria) to support these clinical findings, especially in that specific population, with current literature.
Material-Methods. Retrospective analysis of medical records from five selected patients and application of both PALICC-2 and Phoenix sepsis score to cases identified having simultaneously PARDS after an infectious insult, utilizing clinical and laboratorial information presented at the time.
Results. After scores application, our descriptive case studies demonstrated patients with both diagnoses were chronically infected and exhibited a baseline infectious pattern as the cause of mild/moderate PARDS, exhibiting clinical correlation with score values obtained.
Conclusions: Appropriate correlation between clinical findings and severity scores.
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was first documented by Ashbaugh et al. in 1967 (1). Out of 272 patients on artificial ventilatory support, 12 developed ARDS, characterized by refractory hypoxemia despite increased fractions of inspired oxygen (FiO2), which only improved with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). This clinical presentation included respiratory failure, cyanosis, reduced pulmonary compliance, and diffuse bilateral infiltrates on chest radiography. Seven of these 12 patients died. Autopsies revealed a consistent histopathological pattern of microatelectasis, vascular congestion, hemorrhage, pulmonary edema, and hyaline membranes [1].
Initially, ARDS was defined as “adult respiratory distress syndrome” [2]. However, it has become evident that patients in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) could also exhibit a similar systemic syndrome, despite the morphofunctional differences associated with incomplete development of the pulmonary parenchyma and other structures, depending on the age of the individual (4-8). Using the criteria established for adults, the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC) in 2015 defined pediatric ARDS as a syndrome characterized by hypoxia and a new pulmonary inflammatory infiltrate developing within seven days of a known lung insult. Hypoxia was graded based on the Oxygenation Index (OI) as mild, moderate, or severe (4–8, 8–16, and >16, respectively) or alternatively, according to the Berlin criteria using the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (1,3). In 2023, an update to the PALICC-2015 criteria was published by Emeriaud et al. and will be used in the current study [9].
Given the evolving diagnostic criteria for ARDS, epidemiological studies have shown variability depending on the guidelines used. Meta-analyses applying the AECC or Berlin criteria reported an incidence ranging from 2 to 12.8 cases per 100,000 person-years in data from the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. In PICUs, the incidence of ARDS is
1-4% in admitted patients and 8–10% in those on mechanical ventilation [6, 8]. Studies using both criteria concurrently estimated an incidence of 3.5 cases per 100,000 person-years and 2.3% in PICU patients [3,4]. The mortality rate among hospitalized ARDS patients ranges from 35.3% to 46.1%, underscoring the severity of this condition in critically ill pediatric patients [9].
In the pediatric population, the most prevalent direct cause of PARDS is infectious pneumonia, accounting for 35% (5, 6) to 58% [7] of the cases. Sepsis is the most frequent
indirect cause, accounting for 13% [5]-32% (6) of the cases. Given the focus of this study, greater emphasis was placed on sepsis as an indirect etiology.
The definitions of "systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "multiple organ dysfunction syndrome" stem from the Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference organized by the American College of Critical Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine in 2002 have been changed. Sepsis was defined as the presence of SIRS alongside an infection, with SIRS requiring two of the following four criteria: abnormal body temperature (>38.5°C or <36>
In 2024, a new international consensus introduced the Phoenix score for the diagnosis of pediatric sepsis and septic shock. This score accounts for age-related differences in vital signs, immune function, comorbidities, clinical presentation, and outcomes. Sepsis is defined by a Phoenix score ≥2 points, indicating significant multisystem organ dysfunction in children with suspected or confirmed infection. Septic shock is characterized by a score ≥1 in the cardiovascular component, reflecting severe hypotension, serum lactate >5 mmol/L, or vasoactive drug requirement (10). In this context, the present study aimed to provide a descriptive analysis and exemplify the application of two risk stratification systems—PALICC-2 for Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PARDS) and Phoenix for sepsis/septic shock—in the population admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit of the Instituto da Criança, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo. This is a tertiary care center specialized in the management of highly complex cases and chronically ill patients.
This retrospective study analyzed some medical records of patients admitted between 2020 and 2022. The search employed the keywords “acute respiratory distress syndrome,” “respiratory distress syndrome,” “Shock Lung,” and “Acute Lung Injury” as discharge diagnoses. From these discharge diagnoses, the selected medical records were further examined to identify cases in which sepsis was documented as the etiology of pulmonary involvement.
In addition to identifying sepsis as the cause of PARDS, this study aimed to identify cases of suspected or confirmed infection at admission or during hospitalization. A suspected infection was defined as a classical clinical presentation accompanied by positive markers of acute inflammation (e.g., elevated C-reactive protein and hematological changes such as leukocytosis and neutrophilia) but lacking microbiological confirmation via blood culture [8].
Similarly, confirmed infection was defined as a clinical presentation consistent with infection, positive acute inflammatory markers, and microbiological confirmation of the infection [8].
From the selected medical records, analyzed variables included age, sex, PIM2 Score, Phoenix Score, PALICC-2022 criteria, comorbidities at ICU admission, etiology of PARDS, and severity grade of PARDS at the time of diagnosis. Regarding the analysis of PARDS specifically, the PaO2/FiO2 and SatO2/FiO2 ratios were examined at the time of diagnosis based on the following parameters: PaO2 (arterial oxygen pressure), SatO2 (oxygen saturation via pulse oximetry), and FiO2 (inspired oxygen fraction) [8, 9, 10].
Phoenix Score
The Phoenix Score is part of the new international consensus for the pediatric population regarding the diagnosis of sepsis and septic shock. Published in 2024 by Schlapbach et al. [10], the new definitions are based on age-related variabilities compared to adults, including differences in vital signs, immune function development, comorbidities in clinical presentations, and the epidemiology and outcomes of these conditions. According to the new resolution, sepsis identified using the Phoenix criteria is determined by a score of two or more points, indicating significant multisystem organ dysfunction, which may involve the respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, or coagulation systems in children with suspected or confirmed infection. Septic shock in this population is defined by the presence of suspected infection and one point in the cardiovascular component of the Phoenix Score, which is associated with severe age-specific hypotension, a serum lactate level above 5 mmol/L, or the need for vasoactive drugs. For the purposes of this study, the cutoff value adopted in the cardiovascular system was set at 1 [10].
PIM2 Score
The PIM2 Score was calculated based on data from the medical records of the selected patients at the time of admission to the intensive care unit [25].
PALICC – 2022
The diagnosis must adhere to the criteria defined by the 2022 PALICC guidelines [9]. The cut-off value used for severity parameters was primarily based on the SatO2/FiO2 ratio, which was more readily applicable to all patients. The selected threshold was set at 265 because this value has been shown to correlate with mortality in the study by Khemani et al. [11].
Initial Patient Selection
Initial patient selection was conducted using ICD codes, specifically employing discharge diagnoses defined as J80 and J81 [24]. This search yielded seven patients with chronic diseases and acute respiratory involvement.
The medical records of the selected patients were analyzed, with the primary inclusion criterion being adherence to the 2022 PALICC criteria [9]. Five patients met the inclusion criteria. Subsequently, the Phoenix score was applied using data from the day of PARDS
diagnosis to determine the infectious etiology of the respiratory condition. Simultaneously, PIM2 severity score data were collected at the time of admission to the intensive care unit.
Additional data were gathered for the study, guided by an analysis of the patients' clinical presentations and clinical-laboratory characteristics, including cultures and viral panels, as well as the antibiotic regimens administered during the entire hospitalization period.
All patients analyzed had pre-existing chronic conditions, which determined the pattern of chronic admission to the emergency and intensive care departments, either due to decompensation of the underlying condition or clinical complications resulting from frequent admissions. In all the selected cases, the profile of decompensation or its association with the underlying disease was ruled out during the diagnostic investigation. Table 1 summarizes the medical history of the previous diagnoses for each patient.
| ||
| D |
|
|
| And |
|
|
Table 1: Relationship between the patients (A, B, C, D, and E) and their respective clinical histories.
A retrospective review of medical records identified seven patients, including their respective readmissions, based on discharge ICD codes J80 and J81. Among these, only five met the PALICC-2 diagnostic criteria for pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS) [9].
The study included pediatric patients with a diagnosis of PARDS who met the following criteria: admission to our pediatric intensive care unit between January and December 2022; age between 1 month and 18 years and a diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock with Phoenix score [10]. Conversely, patients with a diagnosis of PARDS from other etiologies were excluded.
These five patients were selected for the study, and their clinical data were the focus of medical record analysis. For the reason that the present study is a descriptive case series, no statistical analyses were performed.
The most common initial presentation in all patients was a clinical syndrome of acute respiratory distress accompanied by hypoxemia, either refractory or responsive to oxygenation measures. All patients had chronic clinical conditions with acute respiratory deterioration.
The next step in the review of medical records was to assess PARDS severity. The analysis focused on clinical parameters such as SatO2, FiO2 and SatO2/FiO2 ratios. These parameters were chosen because they were the most consistently available across the clinical records of all patients. Notably that only one patient (Patient D) received mechanical ventilation during the hospitalization period. To ensure the consistency of the analyzed data, the aforementioned parameters were prioritized, as summarized in Table 2.
| Patient | SatO2 | FiO2 | SatO2/FiO2 |
| A | 95 | 50 | 190 |
| B | 92 | 35 | 262 |
| C | 92 | 40 | 230 |
| D | 85 | 40 | 212 |
| E | 88 | 50 | 176 |
Table 2: Oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SatO2); inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2); ratio of SatO2 to FiO2 (SatO2/FiO2). A, B, C, D, and E: patients selected for the study.
In these patients, the infectious etiology of the syndrome, such as sepsis and septic shock, was also investigated, resulting in a smaller number of patients selected for the case series. Infectious etiology was considered in the presence of suspected or confirmed infection at admission or during hospitalization. Accordingly, the Phoenix score was applied to the patients and the results are presented in Table 3.
| Patient | Phoenix Score | FiO2 | Lactate | INR | Glasgo w | Platelets |
| A | 3 | 50% | 15 | 1,22 | >10 | 216.000 |
| B | 1 | 40% | NOT PERFO RMED | 1,3 | >10 | 487.000 |
| C | 1 | 40% | NOT PERFO RMED | NOT PERFO RMED | >10 | 438.000 |
| D | 4 | 80% | 35 | 1,22 | >10 | 32.000 |
| E | 4 | 100% | 114 | 2,48 | >10 | 6.000 |
Table 3: Phoenix score and its constituent parameters. A, B, C, D, and E: patients selected for the study.
It is noteworthy that in all patients, throughout their hospitalization periods, owing to the acute infectious cause, pathogen screening was performed for both bacterial and viral pathogens using different methods such as blood culture, urine culture, sputum culture, and viral panel. The tests were negative or showed the presence of polymicrobial growth, which hindered specific analysis and was consistent with previous cultures suggestive of normal flora in chronically infected individuals. Consequently, the therapeutic approach involves the escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy owing to the refractoriness of the infectious clinical condition to drugs.
Furthermore, during hospitalization of all patients, empirical antibiotic therapy with sensitivity profiles directed at more resistant pathogens was introduced without direct identification. It is unclear whether non-targeted therapy to a specific pathogen determines a favorable or unfavorable resolution, but it indicates a pattern of recurrent infections based on the number of readmissions or progression to death, which occurred in one case (D).
The analysis of clinical and laboratory data from the selected patients in the context of their respiratory condition raised important points for discussion.
The limited number of patients with both clinical entities as the subjects of the study was initially a reflection of the intersection of two clinical conditions as cause and consequence: sepsis/septic shock and PARDS in patients with chronic diseases.
The recent Phoenix criteria for sepsis and septic shock were developed to expand the diagnosis of these conditions in patients admitted to services with varying levels of resources, compared with the previously used IPSCC criteria, and have been validated in large multicenter studies [18, 10]. These criteria have proven useful in identifying patients with the clinical entities studied, adequately distinguishing them, and correlating them with the clinical conditions presented by the patients in the current case series. This was evident in that in more severely ill patients; intensive escalation of antibiotic therapy was implemented due to the rapid deterioration of their condition.
Given that the Phoenix score includes more specific tests that were not routinely requested during the time frame analyzed, and in the presence of other sepsis criteria, fibrinogen and D-dimer measurements were not requested at the time of diagnosis. Moreover, as the publication date is 2024, studies on the applicability of this score are still lacking.
This characteristic had already been reported in a study conducted by Long et al. [22], which validated the aforementioned score in a multicenter meta-analysis on the epidemiology of sepsis in populations from 2021 to 2023. In that study, a major limitation identified was the lack of complete data for full score application, particularly regarding coagulation parameters—a limitation also observed in the analysis of our population. In Long’s study, missing variables were assumed to be within normal ranges, thus avoiding impact on the final score results. Furthermore, as highlighted in that study, the absence of certain biochemical analyses may limit the applicability of the Phoenix score in low- and middle-income settings.
In another recently published study by Sanchez-Pinto et al. [23], a meta-analysis evaluated the validation of the Phoenix score in a multicenter cohort of chronically ill pediatric patients between 2012 and 2018. Including a population of 11,168 patients with confirmed sepsis diagnoses based on the score—approximately 60.8% of whom had comorbidities such as malignancies and transplant status—the study validated the use of the Phoenix score in multi-comorbid patients, finding similar outcomes when compared to previously healthy populations. This conclusion supports the use of the Phoenix score in the present case series, given the similarity between our patient population and that analyzed in the referenced study.
In this regard, the literature supports the applicability of the score in severely ill, multi-comorbid patients—a profile that characterizes the population in our unit—and the results obtained from the score show correlation with the clinical outcomes predicted by the score, despite the presence of missing variables, as observed in our descriptive analysis.
The classification of severity in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been the subject of studies aimed at better characterizing the impairment of respiratory function in affected patients and directing specific therapies for each severity group, with the goal of improving prognostic outcomes such as days free from mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and mortality. In this context, the Berlin criteria, initially, and PALICC-2, more recently, proposed severity assessment parameters primarily based on the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and oxygenation index (OI) 24 h after the initial insult [9].
Following the publication of these two criteria, several studies have been conducted to evaluate their applicability and to distinguish severity parameters in various intensive care centers. Studies such as Yehya et al. [14], 2015, emphasize that both parameters accurately stratify outcomes related to morbidity and mortality, such as a higher number of days free from mechanical ventilation and its duration in patients who survived by the end of the study. Additionally, they established a timeframe for assessing these two parameters, which was 24 h in the referenced study, while another study by the same author (Yehya et al., 13), 2018, found similar results when evaluated at 6 and 12 h after the insult.
Both of the aforementioned consensus guidelines established the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and oxygenation index (OI) as the standard parameters for assessing severity, being the most accurate for this purpose. Over time, following their respective publications, various studies have validated that both are consistent in identifying patients with severe ARDS, advocating that when combined with general prognostic factors, the oxygenation index is more accurate in severe cases. In contrast, in patients with mild or moderate disease, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio can be used more easily and quickly because of its simple calculation [12].
As shown in Table 1, the primary parameter for severity assessment was the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, with the oxygenation index being impossible to calculate due to the lack of the "mean airway pressure" parameter provided by the device.
Thus, the main parameter used for stratifying severity during the patients' hospitalization was oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SatO2) and its SatO2/FiO2 ratio, as shown in Table 3, owing to its ease of measurement. After reviewing the literature, several studies, such as those by Lobete et al. [17] and Khemani et al. [16], have validated the use of this parameter as a noninvasive marker for identifying hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and PARDS.
When compared with the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, the SatO2/FiO2 ratio proved to be appropriate for children with respiratory failure presenting with SatO2 values between 80 and 97%, as all patients in the present study showed [15]. The SatO2/FiO2 ratio and oxygen saturation index (OSI), calculated using the same parameters but in patients on mechanical ventilation, are further supported as methods for discriminating mortality from PARDS in intensive care units, similar to the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and oxygenation index. These parameters are also used for risk stratification and severity scoring, as advocated by Khemani et al. [11] in 2015 and validated in the most recent PALICC criteria [9].
In the analyzed sample, patients exhibited heterogeneity in their underlying clinical conditions. Despite this, all conditions were clinically controlled and unrelated to the acute infectious presentation.
However, the presence of one or, in some cases, multiple chronic diseases are considered strong risk factors for the development of sepsis and septic shock. According to a study by Prout et al. [20], approximately two out of three children admitted to hospitals with a diagnosis of sepsis had at least one chronic condition, a correlation associated with higher in-hospital mortality. In the same retrospective cohort study, the average in-hospital mortality rate was 3.7%, with 0.7% for patients without any underlying conditions, and 5.1% for those with chronic diseases. Furthermore, this study identified that oncological, hematological, metabolic, neurological, cardiac, and renal conditions as well as solid organ transplantation were associated with higher mortality in this patient subset.
Similarly, regarding acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the study by Nattachai et al. [21] assessed the severity of sepsis at diagnosis and mortality outcomes at 7 and 30 days. The results indicated that higher PIM 3 scores, underlying oncological and hematological conditions, and lower prediagnosis albumin levels were associated with moderate and severe disease at the time of diagnosis. Additionally, patients with oncological and hematological conditions, as well as lower hemoglobin levels due to other underlying diseases, were associated with worse 7-day prognostic outcomes.
Thus, the association between disease severity and the presence of underlying chronic conditions in patients with sepsis or septic shock, as well as PARDS, is well established in the literature and was similarly observed in this case series [20,21].
Another common characteristic among the patients in the current study was the difficulty in conducting an etiological investigation, owing to comorbidities. This challenge arose primarily because these patients exhibited microbial flora with distinct patterns of microorganisms and resistance profiles, resulting in negative serial cultures and necessitating empirical escalation to broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy, including drugs targeting the resistance profiles of nosocomial pathogens.
Despite this chronic and distinct microbial colonization profile in patients with various comorbidities, studies such as that by Phung et al. [19], which evaluated prognostic outcomes related to ARDS in patients undergoing pathogen screening, concluded that no statistically significant differences were observed in the outcomes between the surviving and non-surviving groups. These findings occurred despite differences in the identified pathogens, the incidence of multiple viral infections, sex, age, clinical characteristics, and treatment.
Thus, as observed in this study, the application of two severity scales (PALICC and Phoenix) facilitates the diagnosis, even in milder cases, of chronically ill patients presenting both acute conditions. This sample size could serve as the basis for large-scale studies.
Advantages and Limitations
This study demonstrated the applicability of the PALICC and Phoenix severity scores in chronically ill children and adolescents in the PICU of a tertiary and university hospital, mostly occupied by patients with exacerbated chronic diseases.
Therefore, the use of both scores is essential for the suspicion and diagnosis of such high-mortality conditions.
It is noteworthy that the application of the scores proved to be fundamental, as this is an ICU in a middle-income country, which sometimes has limited resources for diagnosing certain conditions using advanced medical technologies. In this case, a retrospective diagnosis was made using both the scores.
As for limitations, this study was a descriptive case series, focusing on the applicability of the most recent severity scores for PARDS and sepsis in a pediatric population with chronic diseases. Although the sample consisted of only five patients, due to the combined incidence of both diseases being relatively low, mainly in patients with an underlying chronic condition, the study serves as an example of what may occur in larger-scale studies involving a similar patient population, including low and middle-income countries.
The methodological limitation of this study arises from two main sources of potential bias. First, the collection of data for both PALLICC-2 and Phoenix scores - specifically, the ordering of diagnostic tests and the measurement of parameters - was dependent on the individual healthcare professional who provided initial care, this introduces a risk of inter-rater variability, as clinical practice and documentation may differ among clinicians. Second, the selection of pertinent results from the medical records was limited to the researcher who accessed available information at the time. This researcher-dependent selection may introduce a risk of observer bias. However, given the descriptive nature of this case series, the information collected and selected was sufficient for analyzing these parameters within clinical context of the cases presented.
A correlation was observed between the clinical characteristics of the patients and the severity score values. Chronic clinical conditions, such as those presented by the selected patients, may interfere with the etiological identification of the acute septic condition, representing a factor for poorer prognosis, as supported by the literature.
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
Dear Jessica, and the super professional team of the ‘Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions’ I am sincerely grateful to the coordinated work of the journal team for the no problem with the submission of my manuscript: “Cardiometabolic Disorders in A Pregnant Woman with Severe Preeclampsia on the Background of Morbid Obesity (Case Report).” The review process by 5 experts was fast, and the comments were professional, which made it more specific and academic, and the process of publication and presentation of the article was excellent. I recommend that my colleagues publish articles in this journal, and I am interested in further scientific cooperation. Sincerely and best wishes, Dr. Oleg Golyanovskiy.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator of the journal - Psychology and Mental Health Care. " The process of obtaining publication of my article in the Psychology and Mental Health Journal was positive in all areas. The peer review process resulted in a number of valuable comments, the editorial process was collaborative and timely, and the quality of this journal has been quickly noticed, resulting in alternative journals contacting me to publish with them." Warm regards, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. I appreciate the journal (JCCI) editorial office support, the entire team leads were always ready to help, not only on technical front but also on thorough process. Also, I should thank dear reviewers’ attention to detail and creative approach to teach me and bring new insights by their comments. Surely, more discussions and introduction of other hemodynamic devices would provide better prevention and management of shock states. Your efforts and dedication in presenting educational materials in this journal are commendable. Best wishes from, Farahnaz Fallahian.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. I am delighted to have published our manuscript, "Acute Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction (ACPO): A rare but serious complication following caesarean section." I want to thank the editorial team, especially Maria Emerson, for their prompt review of the manuscript, quick responses to queries, and overall support. Yours sincerely Dr. Victor Olagundoye.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. Many thanks for publishing this manuscript after I lost confidence the editors were most helpful, more than other journals Best wishes from, Susan Anne Smith, PhD. Australian Breastfeeding Association.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The entire process including article submission, review, revision, and publication was extremely easy. The journal editor was prompt and helpful, and the reviewers contributed to the quality of the paper. Thank you so much! Eric Nussbaum, MD
Dr Hala Al Shaikh This is to acknowledge that the peer review process for the article ’ A Novel Gnrh1 Gene Mutation in Four Omani Male Siblings, Presentation and Management ’ sent to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was quick and smooth. The editorial office was prompt with easy communication.
Dear Erin Aust, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice. We are pleased to share our experience with the “Journal of General Medicine and Clinical Practice”, following the successful publication of our article. The peer review process was thorough and constructive, helping to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. We are especially thankful to Ms. Erin Aust, the Editorial Coordinator, for her prompt communication and continuous support throughout the process. Her professionalism ensured a smooth and efficient publication experience. The journal upholds high editorial standards, and we highly recommend it to fellow researchers seeking a credible platform for their work. Best wishes By, Dr. Rakhi Mishra.
Dear Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, Auctores Publishing LLC. The peer review process of the journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions was excellent and fast, as was the support of the editorial office and the quality of the journal. Kind regards Walter F. Riesen Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Walter F. Riesen.
Dear Ashley Rosa, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews, Auctores Publishing LLC. Thank you for publishing our article, Exploring Clozapine's Efficacy in Managing Aggression: A Multiple Single-Case Study in Forensic Psychiatry in the international journal of clinical case reports and reviews. We found the peer review process very professional and efficient. The comments were constructive, and the whole process was efficient. On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank you for publishing this article. With regards, Dr. Jelle R. Lettinga.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, I would like to express my deep admiration for the exceptional professionalism demonstrated by your journal. I am thoroughly impressed by the speed of the editorial process, the substantive and insightful reviews, and the meticulous preparation of the manuscript for publication. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the courteous and immediate responses from your editorial office to all my inquiries. Best Regards, Dariusz Ziora
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation, Auctores Publishing LLC, We would like to thank the editorial team for the smooth and high-quality communication leading up to the publication of our article in the Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. The reviewers have extensive knowledge in the field, and their relevant questions helped to add value to our publication. Kind regards, Dr. Ravi Shrivastava.
Dear Clarissa Eric, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, Auctores Publishing LLC, USA Office: +1-(302)-520-2644. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the efficient and professional handling of my case report by the ‘Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies’. The peer review process was not only fast but also highly constructive—the reviewers’ comments were clear, relevant, and greatly helped me improve the quality and clarity of my manuscript. I also received excellent support from the editorial office throughout the process. Communication was smooth and timely, and I felt well guided at every stage, from submission to publication. The overall quality and rigor of the journal are truly commendable. I am pleased to have published my work with Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Studies, and I look forward to future opportunities for collaboration. Sincerely, Aline Tollet, UCLouvain.
Dear Ms. Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator, International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. “The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews represented the “ideal house” to share with the research community a first experience with the use of the Simeox device for speech rehabilitation. High scientific reputation and attractive website communication were first determinants for the selection of this Journal, and the following submission process exceeded expectations: fast but highly professional peer review, great support by the editorial office, elegant graphic layout. Exactly what a dynamic research team - also composed by allied professionals - needs!" From, Chiara Beccaluva, PT - Italy.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, we have deeply appreciated the professionalism demonstrated by the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. The reviewers have extensive knowledge of our field and have been very efficient and fast in supporting the process. I am really looking forward to further collaboration. Thanks. Best regards, Dr. Claudio Ligresti
Dear Chrystine Mejia, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Neurodegeneration and Neurorehabilitation. “The peer review process was efficient and constructive, and the editorial office provided excellent communication and support throughout. The journal ensures scientific rigor and high editorial standards, while also offering a smooth and timely publication process. We sincerely appreciate the work of the editorial team in facilitating the dissemination of innovative approaches such as the Bonori Method.” Best regards, Dr. Matteo Bonori.
I recommend without hesitation submitting relevant papers on medical decision making to the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I am very grateful to the editorial staff. Maria Emerson was a pleasure to communicate with. The time from submission to publication was an extremely short 3 weeks. The editorial staff submitted the paper to three reviewers. Two of the reviewers commented positively on the value of publishing the paper. The editorial staff quickly recognized the third reviewer’s comments as an unjust attempt to reject the paper. I revised the paper as recommended by the first two reviewers.
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator, Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. Thank you for publishing our case report: "Clinical Case of Effective Fetal Stem Cells Treatment in a Patient with Autism Spectrum Disorder" within the "Journal of Clinical Research and Reports" being submitted by the team of EmCell doctors from Kyiv, Ukraine. We much appreciate a professional and transparent peer-review process from Auctores. All research Doctors are so grateful to your Editorial Office and Auctores Publishing support! I amiably wish our article publication maintained a top quality of your International Scientific Journal. My best wishes for a prosperity of the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. Hope our scientific relationship and cooperation will remain long lasting. Thank you very much indeed. Kind regards, Dr. Andriy Sinelnyk Cell Therapy Center EmCell
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions. It was truly a rewarding experience to work with the journal “Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions”. The peer review process was insightful and encouraging, helping us refine our work to a higher standard. The editorial office offered exceptional support with prompt and thoughtful communication. I highly value the journal’s role in promoting scientific advancement and am honored to be part of it. Best regards, Meng-Jou Lee, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, National Taiwan University Hospital.
Dear Editorial Team, Journal-Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, “Publishing my article with Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions has been a highly positive experience. The peer-review process was rigorous yet supportive, offering valuable feedback that strengthened my work. The editorial team demonstrated exceptional professionalism, prompt communication, and a genuine commitment to maintaining the highest scientific standards. I am very pleased with the publication quality and proud to be associated with such a reputable journal.” Warm regards, Dr. Mahmoud Kamal Moustafa Ahmed
Dear Maria Emerson, Editorial Coordinator of ‘International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews’, I appreciate the opportunity to publish my article with your journal. The editorial office provided clear communication during the submission and review process, and I found the overall experience professional and constructive. Best regards, Elena Salvatore.
Dear Mayra Duenas, Editorial Coordinator of ‘International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews Herewith I confirm an optimal peer review process and a great support of the editorial office of the present journal
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions. I am really grateful for the peers review; their feedback gave me the opportunity to reflect on the message and impact of my work and to ameliorate the article. The editors did a great job in addition by encouraging me to continue with the process of publishing.
Dear Cecilia Lilly, Editorial Coordinator, Endocrinology and Disorders, Thank you so much for your quick response regarding reviewing and all process till publishing our manuscript entitled: Prevalence of Pre-Diabetes and its Associated Risk Factors Among Nile College Students, Sudan. Best regards, Dr Mamoun Magzoub.
