AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Case Report | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2578-8965/211
Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Atrium Health Fertility Center 1025 Morehead Medical Plaza Unit 500 Charlotte, NC 28204.
*Corresponding Author: Bradley S Hurst, Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Atrium Health Fertility Center 1025 Morehead Medical Plaza Unit 500 Charlotte, NC 28204.
Citation: Kathryn M Goldrick, Michelle L Matthews, Rebecca S Usadi, Tasha L Gill, Bradley S Hurst, (2024), Comparison of Two Types of Endometrial Scratch before Embryo Transfer and Patient-Reported Pain Scores: A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study, J. Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, 8(3) DOI:10.31579/2578-8965/211
Copyright: © 2024, Bradley S Hurst. 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: 15 March 2024 | Accepted: 27 March 2024 | Published: 05 April 2024
Keywords: endometrial scratch; assisted reproductive technology; in vitro fertilization
Background: The impact of various methods of endometrial scratch during assisted reproductive technology (ART) is not well established.
Objective: To compare patient-reported pain scores and ART outcomes following two types of endometrial scratch prior to embryo transfer.
Study design: In this prospective, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial, patients were assigned to either Pipelle or Shepard catheter. The primary outcome was mean pain score. Secondary outcomes included implantation rate (IR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR).
Results: One hundred seventy transfers were included (Pipelle: n=78, Shepard: n=92). Mean pain scores were significantly lower in the Shepard group compared to the Pipelle group (3.0±2.4 vs. 3.9±2.2, respectively; p=0.01). There was no significant difference in IR (Shepard: 59.7%±52 and Pipelle: 56.5%±48; p=0.9) and CPR (Shepard: 67.6%±47 and Pipelle: 71.8%±45; p=0.6).
Conclusions: In our study, the Shepard catheter was a less painful method of endometrial scratch without compromising ART outcomes.
In the United States, approximately 2.3% of infants are conceived using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) (1). Over the past three decades, there have been significant improvements in clinical outcomes of ART procedures. Notably, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates associated with in vitro fertilization (IVF) are 35% and 40%, respectively (2, 3). Interventions such as endometrial scratch have been evaluated to improve implantation and ART success. Endometrial scratch, a procedure that involves intentional disruption of the endometrium prior to embryo transfer, may increase endometrial receptivity and implantation (4-6). However, while some studies suggest that endometrial scratch prior to embryo transfer may improve implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates, patients report experiencing moderate pain and discomfort during the endometrial scratch procedure (6-10)
Endometrial scratch is associated with significantly higher pain scores compared to patients who did not receive endometrial scratch during ART (11). In a multicenter randomized control trial of 1,364 patients, the median pain score reported by patients who underwent endometrial scratch was 3.5 out of 10 on a visual analogue scale (IQR=1.9-6.0) (Lensen, 2019). Furthermore, two additional studies found patients who underwent endometrial scratch experienced moderate to severe pain with mean pain scores of 6.42 and 6.93 (11, 12). However, these studies utilized the Pipelle catheter for endometrial biopsy. To our knowledge, no studies have assessed pain scores in women who underwent endometrial scratch using the Shepard intrauterine insemination catheter.
The objective of this study was to compare the effects of two endometrial scratch techniques – an endometrial biopsy with a Pipelle catheter and a four-quadrant endometrial scratch using a Shepard insemination catheter – on patient-reported pain scores. Through this study, we aim to elucidate implications for clinical practice of endometrial scratch during ART for women undergoing IVF procedures, to achieve comparable ART success while minimizing patient discomfort.
Study Design and Participants
This prospective, non-blinded randomized controlled trial with parallel treatment arms was conducted from 2014 to 2017 at an academic fertility center. This study was reviewed and approved by the Carolinas Healthcare System Institutional Review Board. Patients undergoing embryo transfer who were in the cycle prior to their planned embryo transfer were included in this study. Patients who did not undergo an embryo transfer, had a known pregnancy, active pelvic infection, known endometrial hyperplasia or cancer, inability to tolerate endometrial catheter placement, severe cervical stenosis, and patients who were planned for operative hysteroscopy in the cycle prior to embryo transfer were excluded.
Randomization
Patients were randomized by a random number generator for allocation to either: 1) endometrial biopsy with a Pipelle catheter or 2) four-quadrant endometrial scratch with a Shepard insemination catheter.
Endometrial Scratch Technique
Patients were scheduled for the endometrial scratch procedure during days 21-27 of the cycle prior to embryo transfer. For patients in the Shepard catheter group, a four-quadrant technique was performed by inserting the Shepard catheter to reach to uterine fundus then rotating it in quarter-turns at the 12:00, 3:00. 6:00, and 9:00 o’clock positions.
The Shepard catheter has a 1.8 mm diameter tip that is smaller than the Pipelle, more pliant, and can curve the tortuous endocervical canal. This catheter is frequently utilized to perform saline infusion sonogram (SIS) in our clinic.
In the Pipelle group, the endometrial biopsy technique was performed using the Pipelle catheter. The Pipelle was inserted into the upper section of the intrauterine cavity. Suction was applied while rotating the catheter during withdrawl to remove an adequate endometrial tissue sample. Endometrial disruption was confirmed via ultrasound. The remainder of the IVF cycle and embryo transfer proceeded in accordance with standard institutional protocol.
Pain Scores:
The primary outcome was pain scores. Patients were given a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to assess pain immediately following the endometrial scratch procedure for both techniques. Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale of 1-10, where 1 represented no pain and 10 indicated maximum pain (13). Secondary outcomes included implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate. Implantation rate was defined as the number of fetal sacs per embryos transferred. Clinical pregnancy was confirmed by ultrasound and measured as the rate of pregnancies per embryo transfer.
ART Cycles:
Demographic and ART outcome data were recorded from electronic medical records. Demographic data included age, sex, and ethnicity. Data on the number of embryos, embryo transfer, implantation, and positive pregnancy tests were collected within 1 year after the last embryo transfer.
Descriptive statistics of the sociodemographic and ART characteristics were used to describe the study population. Mean and standard deviation were used for continuous, while categorical variables were described using frequencies and percentages. Mann Whitney U or student’s t-test was used to compare pain scores across groups. Implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates were compared using chi-square test. Statistical significance was set at p less than0.05. Data were analyzed in partnership with statisticians from the Carolina Medical Center’s Dickson Advanced Analytics using DA2 software.
A total of 162 patients were recruited and 29 of these patients were re-randomized in subsequent embryo transfer cycles. Of the 195 transfers included in this study, 25 cycles were excluded for cervical stenosis, patient intolerance of procedure, patient drop-out of study, and no available embryos for transfer. Thus, 170 transfers remained. Seventy-eight patients were assigned to the to the Pipelle arm, and 92 patients were randomized to the Shepard arm (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Flow diagram of participants.
The two groups were well-balanced with regard to age, body mass index (BMI), number of prior live pregnancies, and AMH (Table 1). The mean age for the Pipelle and Shepard catheter groups was 33.8 and 34.2 years, respectively. There were no significant differences in the number of prior pregnancies and prior live births. In addition, there were no significant differences in ART cycle characteristics between the two groups (Table 2).
| Pipelle (n=78) | Shepard (n=92) | p-value | |
| Maternal age | 33.8 ± 4.6 | 34.2 ± 3.9 | 0.6 |
| BMI | 24.9 ± 4.3 | 24.8 ± 5.5 | 0.9 |
| Number of prior pregnancies | 0.9 ± 1.1 | 1.1 ± 1.3 | 0.3 |
| Number prior live births | 0.4 ± 0.7 | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.9 |
| AMH | 4.2 ± 3.3 | 4.4 ± 4.0 | 0.9 |
Data reported as mean ±SD.
Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the Pipelle and Shepard catheter groups.
| Pipelle (n=78) | Shepard (n=92) | |
PGT-A/PGT-D Screened Unscreened |
27 (35) 50 (65) |
37 (42) 52 (58) |
Type cycle Fresh Frozen |
1 (1) 77 (99) |
2 (2) 90 (98) |
| Donor egg | 5 (6) | 6 (7) |
Type of freezing Slow freeze Vitrification |
0 (0) 77 (100) |
3 (3) 85 (97) |
| Number eggs retrieved | 17.8 ±9.0 | 19.1 ±10.3 |
| Number eggs fertilized | 10.9 ± 5.7 | 11.1 ± 6.7 |
| Number embryos transferred | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.3 |
| Number eggs retrieved | 17.8 ±9.0 | 19.1 ±10.3 |
| Number eggs fertilized | 10.9 ± 5.7 | 11.1 ± 6.7 |
| Number embryos transferred | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.3 |
Data reported as n (%) or mean ±SD.
No significant differences were reported.
Table 2: ART cycle characteristics of the Pipelle and Shepard catheter groups.
Pain and ART Outcomes
Patients who underwent endometrial scratch using the Shepard catheter reported experiencing statistically significant lower pain scores compared to patients who received the Pipelle (Shepard: 3.0 ± 2.4 and Pipelle: 3.9 ± 2.2, p=0.01) (Table 3). Although the implantation rate was slightly higher in the Shepard group at 59.7% compared to 56.5% in the Pipelle group, this finding was not statistically significant (p=0.9). Similarly, there was no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rates between Shepard and Pipelle groups (Shepard: 67.6% ±47 and Pipelle: 71.8% ± 45; p=0.6).
| Pipelle | Shepard | p-value | |
| Pain score1 | 3.9 ± 2.2 | 3.0 ± 2.4 | 0.01 |
| Implantation rate | 56.5% ± 48 | 59.7% ± 52 | 0.9 |
| Clinical pregnancy rate | 71.8% ± 45 | 67.6% ±47 | 0.6 |
Data reported as mean ±SD.
1Pain score reported by visual analog scale (1-10).
Table 3: Pain scores and ART outcomes between Pipelle and Shepard Catheter groups.
In this prospective randomized control trial of patients who underwent endometrial scratch prior to embryo transfer, patients who received the Shepard catheter had statistically significant lower pain scores than patients who received the Pipelle. The mean pain scores for both the Pipelle and
Shepard catheter groups were 3.9 and 3.0, respectively. Despite the lower pain scores in the Shepard catheter group, there were no significant differences in implantation and clinical pregnancy rates between the 2 groups.
Patients who received the Pipelle in our study reported a pain score of 3.9, which is congruent with findings from a prior large-scale study that found a median pain score of 3.5 on a visual analog scale among patients who underwent endometrial scratch using the Pipelle (13). While additional studies of endometrial scratch reported pain scores of 6.42 and 6.93, these discrepancies may be due to several factors including differences in ART cycle characteristics, pre-procedure preparations and variability in clinician technique (11, 12). For instance, all patients in the Nastri, Ferriani (11) study received oral contraceptive pretreatment and the majority of these patients had 2 or more unsuccessful embryo transfers, which may contribute to higher patient-reported pain scores.
Findings from this study suggest that patients who underwent endometrial scratch using the Shepard catheter have significantly lower pain scores compared to those who underwent the Pipelle. Low to moderate pain and discomfort are commonly reported by patients who received the Pipelle for endometrial biopsy (7, 8, 10). However, to our knowledge, no prior studies have assessed pain scores and ART outcomes using the Shepard catheter compared to the standard Pipelle. One possible mechanism for patients’ decreased pain with the Shepard catheter is the smaller diameter 1.8 mm compared with the 3.1 mm diameter of the Pipelle. Moreover, the Shepard catheter is malleable while the Pipelle is semi-rigid. Both factors may contribute to decreased pain since the catheters must pass through the cervix for the endometrial scratch procedure. Finally, endometrial scratch using the Pipelle involves removal of endometrial tissue, whereas endometrial scratch with the Shepard catheter involves only endometrial disruption.
There were no significant differences in implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates across both groups. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of endometrial scratch procedures on ART outcomes. Recent studies have challenged the purported clinical benefits of endometrial scratch (6, 9, 14). In a systematic review of 12 studies involving 3,382 participants undergoing their first cycle of IVF, endometrial scratch had no significant effect on clinical pregnancy rates, and any minimal observed effects on implantation rates was deemed unreliable (9). However, a recent meta-analysis of 41 randomized control trials found that endometrial scratch improved implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in patients undergoing IVF when conducted during the follicular or luteal phase (8). Consequently, our study highlights the importance of optimizing endometrial scratch procedures to reduce patient discomfort, a valuable clinical consideration when the efficacy of specific techniques appears limited.
Endometrial scratch procedures using the Shepard catheter can be performed in office, are relatively quick and easy to use, and incur minimal cost to the patients. Due to the use of the Shepard catheter for saline SIS, we most commonly select a single patient visit during the cycle preceding the ovarian stimulation for IVF. At that time, we accomplish the following procedures in order: 1) trial transfer with a soft embryo transfer catheter, then 2) a saline infusion sonogram with the Shepard catheter using the adjustable sliding positioner of the Shepard catheter to limit fluid back flow, followed by 3) the four quadrant Shepard catheter endometrial scratch. These procedures are completed in one patient visit with a single speculum exam. This practice optimizes patient convenience, lowers procedural costs, and reduces the overall discomfort involved in multiple pelvic exams. While some studies have suggested hysteroscopy as another means of performing endometrial scratch, this modality is more costly, invasive, and time consuming than the two types of endometrial scratch that we chose to study.
The present study maintains several limitations. The lack of blinding in the study design may introduce bias. However, patient-reported pain scores are less likely to be influenced by blinding and secondary outcomes included objective clinical measures such as implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate. In addition, approximately 10% of patients were excluded due to factors such as cervical stenosis, patient intolerance of procedure, dropout, and absence of embryos for transfer. However, patients were randomized which should potential selection bias. In addition, there were only 3 fresh embryo transfers were performed, which may limit the generalizability of these study findings to fresh embryo transfers. Our study primarily consisted of frozen embryo transfers, which aligns with the growing preference for such procedures within the field and increasing use of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). Lastly, the relatively small sample size may reduce power to detect significant differences in the study findings. However, this pilot study is the first of its kind to assess pain scores in patients who underwent endometrial scratch using the Shepard catheter. These study findings warrant larger randomized controlled trials in populations with diverse demographic and ART cycle characteristics.
Despite these limitations, this study maintains several strengths. The robust study design as a prospective randomized control trial with parallel treatment arms minimizes selection bias and allows for the control of potential confounding variables. This study design ensures that the differences observed in pain scores are likely attributable to the 2 procedural endometrial scratch techniques. In addition, the visual analog scale is a valid and reliable measure for patient-reported pain scores and has been used to evaluate pain in patients undergoing endometrial scratch (11, 13, 15). Lastly, inclusion of the secondary ART outcomes such as implantation rates and clinical pregnancy rates provided for a comprehensive assessment of the impact of endometrial scratch techniques. Thus, findings from this study provide valuable context for clinical decision-making during ART, particularly for patients undergoing endometrial scratch prior to embryo transfer.
Findings from this study warrant further research to Findings from this study warrant further research to assess the utility of the Shepard catheter in reducing patient-reported pain and discomfort during endometrial scratch procedures and its impact on clinical outcomes. Further research is needed to investigate the impact of using the Shepard catheter on pain and ART outcomes for endometrial scratch procedures in large, diverse samples. Additional studies that explore the biological mechanisms underlying the potential benefits of endometrial scratch in the context of different scratch techniques, such as endometrial disruption, will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the use of endometrial scratch in ART.
In our study, endometrial scratch using the Shepard catheter was a less painful alternative method for women undergoing IVF while maintaining comparable ART outcomes. While the efficacy of endometrial scratching in ART continues to be the subject of scientific discourse, efforts to mitigate patient discomfort during such procedures should be prioritized. The Shepard catheter may be a promising tool for clinicians conducting endometrial scratch prior to embryo transfer. As advancements in ART continue to be developed, strategies that minimize patient discomfort and improve clinical outcomes must be integrated into clinical practice to support patients embarking on the journey of ART.
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.
