AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2641-0419/348
Hegau Bodensee Klinikum Singen, Gesundheitsverbund Landkreis Konstanz, Virchow Str. 10, 78224 Singen.
*Corresponding Author: © 2024, Marc Kollum. 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
Citation: Sabrina Geng, Jonas Haberland, Elisabeth Haberland, Julia Hromek, Heidi Zimmermann, et al, (2024), Effects on Fatigue and Depression 11 And 19 Months after a Sars-Cov-2 Infection a Case Control Study, J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 7(2); DOI:10.31579/2641-0419/348
Copyright: © 2024, Marc Kollum. 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: 02 February 2024 | Accepted: 13 February 2024 | Published: 19 February 2024
Keywords: fatigue; cognitive fatigue; motor fatigue; depression; post-covid; sars-cov2
Background:
Long- and post-COVID syndrome still needs research. Providing help to the large number of affected individuals in a professional manner is only possible if convincing data on their pathophysiology and the duration of symptoms is provided.
Objectives:
To investigate the incidence of symptoms of fatigue and depression 12 months and 19 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to a SARS-CoV-2 negative control cohort.
Materials and methods:
The presence of fatigue and depression was evaluated in both groups via Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (FSMC) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).
Results:
185 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive subjects and 168 subjects with negative SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers were recruited.
General fatigue symptoms were more common in the SARS-CoV-2 positive group (OR initially 3.8; 95% CI 2.1 to 6.7). During follow up the odds ratio concerning the development of symptoms of fatigue decreased while still being statistically significant (OR follow-up 2.6; 95% CI 1.5 to 4.6).
The association of the infection with motor fatigue, is higher in comparison to cognitive fatigue (OR initial 3.5 and follow-up 3.2 vs OR initial 3.0 and follow-up 2.4).
After 19 months, clinically relevant depressive symptoms are no longer significantly more frequent in the SARS-CoV-2 positive cohort (OR initial 3.0 ; 95% CI 1.4 to 6.1/OR Follow-Up 1.1; 95% CI 0.6 to 2.0).
Conclusion:
Symptoms of fatigue and depression were initially registered more than twice more frequently in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects. During follow-up, the association of general fatigue and SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased, while still being significant. In this context motor fatigue showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the association between symptoms of depression and the initial infection could no longer be observed.
In medicine, the term “fatigue” is used for a symptom of tiredness. If fatigue is considered as a symptom complex or disease it is nowadays most frequently referred as chronic fatigue syndrome (CSF) or myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME).
Pooled prevalence of CSF/ME using the the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-1994 definition is 0,89%. However the prevalence of CFS/ME shows a wide range depending on definition and diagnostic method [1]. Chronic fatigue syndrome is most frequently, in more than 50% of cases [2], triggered by viral infections. Nevertheless the etiology and pathophysiology of fatigue or CFS/ME have not yet been fully clarified.
Objective disease-specific, biological parameters and imaging diagnostics, such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance therapy, for fatigue or diagnosis of CSF are current research goals. Clinical presentation of CFS/ME is very heterogeneous. The main symptoms are excessive fatigue, lack of energy and exhaustion lasting over 6 months, which cannot be relieved by rest or recuperation [3]. The slightest physical or mental exertion aggravates the symptoms and causes post-exertional malaise (PEM)[4]. Sleep disorders, cognitive impairments such as memory, attention and concentration disorders, non-specific myalgias/arthralgias with pathological muscle fatigue and ataxia are common [4]. In addition, there are psychiatric symptoms such as emotional instability, anxiety and depression[4].
During the course of the pandemic, an international meta-analysis showed that 56.9% of COVID-19 patients still had symptoms for at least two months after infection [5]. The most common symptoms were fatigue (31.4%), dyspnoea (24.1%), pain (19.9%), anxiety (18.9%) and sleep disorders (17.8%)(5). According to the guideline recommendation of the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) [6] persistent symptoms from 4 -12 weeks after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection not explained by an alternative diagnosis are titled ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 and after 12 weeks Post-COVID-syndrome.
The possible mechanisms for the development of Post-COVID-syndrome can be divided into 3 categories: viral persistence, long-lasting inflammation and disturbed autoimmunity [7].
Study Design
The study at hand was designed as a sub-study of the FSC19-KN [8]. It was conducted as a monocentric cohort study in a controlled setting. Its main objective was to investigate the incidence of mental health disorders in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects living in the local district of Constance (Baden Wurttemberg, Germany). Approval was given by the ethics committee of the Albert-Ludwigs-University (Freiburg). The study was registered on the German Clinical Trials Register and Clinicaltrials.gov.
Participants
In the main study FSC19-KN [8] 280 participants had a Polymerase-Chain-Reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 238 controls showed negative SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers. During initial visits, the age, gender, medical history, presence of symptoms of COVID-19, necessity of hospitalization, monitoring in an intensive care unit/mechanical ventilation, pre-existing medical conditions and cardiovascular risk profile was recorded systematically.
We contacted all subjects of the main study and asked them to participate in our sub-study (Figure 1).
Figure 1
The presence of fatigue (Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions, FSMC), depression and anxiety disorder (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9/-PD) was evaluated via online questionnaires or by post using paper versions.
Questionnaires
In multiple sclerosis patients fatigue is well known and has a high prevalence up to 78.0% as a secondary illness [9]. It can be further divided into cognitive or motor fatigue [10]. The FSMC is highly sensitive and specific in detecting fatigue in multiple sclerosis patients and its internal consistency and reliability are high [11]
The FSMC general fatigue score (20-100) categorizes none to mild (score < 53>
fatigue score (10-50) categorizes none to mild (score < 28>
The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) comprises nine questions concerning depression. Its total score (0-27) is used to determine the degree of depression (none to severe) [12].
The PHQ–9 is a validated survey for major depression with a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% at a cutoff score of 10 or higher [12]. The score categorizes none to mild (score < 10>
Ethical Consideration
The task of filling out the questionnaires can be stressful for subjects with preexisting mental disorders and lead to an aggravation of their psychological state. To address this problem personal consultation, assistance completing the questionnaires and further information on possible contact addresses were provided to the participants if necessary.
Descriptive statistics were used for a comparative presentation of sociodemographic data. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA (StataCorp. 2019, Texas, USA). FSMC and PHQ-9/-PD score results are given as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Differences in means (DM) and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated via t-test for independent samples with pooled variances. The strength of the association between two events was quantified by odds ratios (OR). The respective 95%-confidence intervals were determined by log odds ratio function. Missing values were not included during data analysis but recorded accurately. All study data were collected and managed using a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) platform [14,15] hosted at https://redcap.glkn.de. The accuracy of the data entries was verified by an external monitor according to guidelines for good clinical practice.
At the time of study inclusion only 7 subjects (3,5%) of the SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects were hospitalized and 1 subject (0,5%) was ventilated mechanically and monitored in an intensive care unit. The mean tie from PCR testing to initial survey in September 2021 is 341±89 days (11.4 ± 3.0 months). The mean time from PCR testing to follow-up survey from January to June 2022 is 572 ± 77 days (19.1 ± 2.6 months).
Regarding only participants with completed follow-up, 185 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive subjects and 168 subjects with negative SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers were included. The average age of the SARS-CoV-2-positive participants is 48.7 years, in the control group 49.9 years. In total, 106 of the SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects (57.3%) and 98 of the control subjects (58.3%) are female, the rest are male (Table 1).
SARS-CoV-2 Positive n=185 | Controls n=168 | |
| Age– Years (M ± SD) [95% CI] | 48,7±15,3 | 49,9±14,1 |
| 18-39 – Number(%) | 53 (28,6) | 36 (21,4) |
| 40-59 – Number(%) | 91 (49,2) | 90 (53,6) |
| 60-79 – Number(%) | 40 (21,6) | 42 (25,0) |
| ≥ 80 – Number (%) | 1 (0,5) | 0 (0,0) |
| Sex | ||
| Male – Number(%) | 79 (42,7) | 70 (41,7) |
| Female – Number(%) | 106 (57,3) | 98 (58,3) |
Legend: M (mean); SD (standard deviation); CI (confidence interval); OR (odds ratio)
Table 1: Distribution of age and gender among the study population
During the follow-up, 33 subjects (18.3%) of the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort reported having had another positive PCR test. In the control group, 49 (29.3%) positive PCR tests were recorded during follow-up.
Moderate to severe general fatigue is determined with the FSMC primarily in 59 participants (32.6%) in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group and in 19 participants (11.4%) in the control cohort. This results in an odds ratio of 3.8 (95% CI 2.1 to 6.9; p<0>
In the SARS-CoV-2-positive group, the average score achieved in the general FSMC score is thus significantly higher (42.5 ± 20.3 vs. 31.8 ± 15.2). The average score achieved by the SARS-CoV-2-positive group is therefore on the borderline of the mild fatigue range (≥ 43 points). However, the average achieved by the SARS-CoV-2-negative group was more clearly within the normal range (<43> Odds Ratio (OR) p-value Missing Values SARS-CoV-2-positive / Controls 42,5±20,3 [39,5;45,5] 40,5±19,4 [37,5; 43,6] 31,8±15,2 [29,5; 34,1] 33,0±17,0 [30,3;35,7] Initial: 4 / 1 FU: 28 / 15 None – Mild Fatigue Number (%) OR Initial 3,8 [2,1;6.7] P<0> OR FU 2,6 [1,5;4,6] P=0,0011 Moderate – Severe Fatigue Number (%) 21,3±10,4 [19,8; 22,8] 20,4±10,2 [18,8; 22,0] 15,9±7,8 [14.6; 17.0] 16,4±8,5 [15,0; 17,8] Initial: 3 / 1 FU: 20 / 11 None – Mild Fatigue Number (%) OR Initial 3,0 [1,6;5,3] P=0,0003 OR FU 2,4 [1,3;4,3] P=0,0031 Moderate – Severe Fatigue Number (%) Score Fatigue motor (M±SD) [95% CI] 21,2±10,3 [19,7;22,7] 20,1±10,0 [18,6; 21,6] 16,0±7,7 [14,8; 17,1] 16,6±8,9 [15,2;18,0] Initial: 3 / 1 FU: 18 / 10 None – Mild Fatigue Anzahl (%) OR Initial 3,5[2,0;6,2] P<0> OR FU 3,2 [1,8;5,8] p=0,0001 Moderate – Severe Fatigue number (%) Score PHQ-9 (M±SD) [95% CI] 5,4±4,8 [4,4; 5,4] 5,1±4,7 [4,3; 5,3] 3,1±3,8 [3,4; 4,3] 4,1±4,8 [4,3; 5,3] Initial: 0 / 1 FU: 7 / 4 None – Mild Symptoms number (%) OR Initial 3,0 [1,4;6,1] p=0,0031 OR FU 1,1 [0,6;2,0] p=0,7512 Moderate – Severe Symptoms number (%) SARS-CoV-2-Positive Controls Initial Follow-Up Initial Follow-Up 185 185 168 168 Score Fatigue overall (M±SD) [95% CI] 122 (67,4) 111 (70,7) 148 (88,6) 132 (86,3) 59 (32,6) 46 (29,3) 19 (11,4) 21 (13,7) Score Fatigue cognitive (M±SD) [95% CI] 134 (73,6) 122 (73,9) 149 (89,2) 137 (87,3) 48 (26,4) 43 (26,1) 18 (10,8) 20 (12,7) 123 (67,6) 116 (69,5) 147 (88,0) 139 (88,0) 59 (32,4) 51 (30,5) 20 (12,0) 19 (12,0) 153 (82,7) 152 (85,4) 156 (93,4) 142 (86,6) 32 (17,3) 26 (14,6) 11 (6,6) 22 (13,4)
Legend: M (mean); SD (standard deviation); CI (confidence interval); OR (odds ratio)
Table 2: Overview of results
Thus, the odds ratio from general fatigue after SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased in the follow-up survey, it remained significantly increased (OR follow-up 2.6; 95% CI 1.5 to 4.6; p=0.0011).
Initially, moderate and severe cognitive fatigue symptoms occurred significantly more frequently in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group with an odds ratio of 3.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 5.3; p<0>
With an odds ratio of 3.5 (95% CI 2.0 to 6.2; p<0>
Looking at the symptoms of fatigue recorded, divided into cognitive and motor, the odds ratio shows an overall higher association of the infection with motor fatigue than with cognitive fatigue (OR initial 3.5 and follow-up 3.2 vs. OR initial 3.0 and follow-up 2.4). The odds ratio and thus the association with SARS-CoV-2 infection was also highest for motor fatigue over the course of the follow-up after approximately 19 months.
Clinically relevant depressive symptoms were significantly more frequent in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group after 12 months (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.4 to 6.1; p=0.0031). During the follow-up, the number of moderate and severe depressive symptoms in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group decreases and the number in the control group increases, so that the association with SARS-CoV-2 infection is no longer present or significant (OR 1.1; 95% CI 0.6 to 2.0; p=0.7512) (Table 2).
This sub-study shows that even 11 and 19 months after the initial predominantly mild course of COVID-19, a considerable number of SARS-CoV-2-positive test subjects still show symptoms. Symptoms of fatigue syndrome and depressive symptoms are significantly more common after a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to a control group.
Due to the initially low hospitalization rate in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort, the results mainly apply to mild courses. However, the study results can be applied to the majority of infected patients in Germany, as more than 90% of COVID patients in Germany were not hospitalized in 2020/2021 [16].
The prevalence of general moderate and severe fatigue after SARS-CoV-2 infection recorded here is consistent with the descriptions of the prevalence of fatigue in one of the largest meta-analyses. Di Gennaro and colleagues [5] were able to show a prevalence of fatigue after COVID of 31.4% in 2022. However, the majority of the included studies were conducted with subjects after hospitalization and fatigue was predominantly surveyed as a perceived symptom without a questionnaire or classification [5]. One of the few comparable studies with a control cohort from Geneva [17] showed the prevalence of fatigue compared to a negative control cohort at 16.0% and 3.1 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Deviating results may be related to patient population, COVID-19 vaccination or the assessment of fatigue using the Chalder Fatigue Score [17].Over the course of the follow-up, this study shows a decrease in fatigue symptoms in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort after an average of 19 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, while an increase was recorded in the control cohort. A decrease in fatigue symptoms in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort was in line with the expectations and results of studies with Post-COVID subjects. Tran et al. [18] were able to demonstrate a reduction in symptoms after 12 months in subjects with Post-COVID-Syndrome, but around 85% of the subjects still had persistent symptoms.
The results described here regarding the subdivision of fatigue with a focus on motor fatigue support possible theories of direct muscle damage in patients with Post-COVID-Syndrome. It was shown a decrease in muscle mass [19,20] and a decrease in hand strength [20] in Post-COVID-19 patients with intensive medical therapy.
Moderate to severe depressive symptoms are also initially more than twice as common in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort. Before the pandemic, the overall prevalence of depressive symptoms in Germany (determined by PHQ-8 score > 10) of 10.1% was recorded in the GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS study of the Robert Koch Institute [21].
The prevalence of depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 score > 10) in the control cohort was a little lower in our survey. This small deviation can be explained by our smaller patient population or by the additional questioning of suicidality in the PHQ-9.
The increase in fatigue and depressive symptoms in the control cohort could be caused by a SARS-CoV-2 infection during the course of the study or by overall circumstances and the psychosocial impact of the pandemic.
In addition, the subjects answered questions about their thoughts, feelings or behaviors in relation to their mental health. This can lead to a bias in the self-report [22].
A selection bias is also conceivable, as subjects suffering from severe depression or fatigue may have been more likely to refuse to participate in the study [23].
Awareness of the infection itself and its potentially serious consequences influence the SARS-CoV-2-positive group compared with nocebo effect, so that they may report possible symptoms significantly more frequently.
The subjects in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort were infected with the initial coronavirus (alpha variant) in the first and second wave between July 2020 and January 2021. The results are therefore primarily applicable to this variant and not vaccinated persons. At the time of study inclusion, no specific vaccination was yet available.
Co-factors in addition to COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection may also have influenced this observation. Pandemic, social and economic circumstance can play an important role especially within occurance of mental illnesses
Even 11 and 19 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, almost a third of the initial SARS-CoV-2-positive test subjects still show moderate and severe fatigue symptoms. The control group shows that both, cognitive and motor fatigue, can be significantly more often associated with the infection. The follow-up showed that the focus of the symptoms was on fatigue and no longer on depression. Further studies dealing with this topic are urgently needed to identify the exact mechanisms and optimize the treatment of a large number of fatigue patients. Awareness for the multisystematic illness post-COVID-Syndrome and faster diagnosis could improve medical care. Drug therapy could be developed on the basis of pathophysiological mechanisms.
Acknowledgements
the author would like to thank the Werner Messmer Foundation for its financial support of this publication
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.
