Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Anti-Influenza Antibody Level After Vaccination In North Of Iran
Correspondence Address :
Abdolvahab Moradi (PhD)Dept. of virology, Golestan University of Medical Scienes,Gorgan city, Golestan province,(Iran)E-mail: abmoradi@yahoo.com
Objective:Influenza is a highly transmitted disease and about 10% of the world’s population is affected by this disease annually. The aim of this research was to study the variation of serum antibody levels among subjects who had already been vaccinated against influenza.
Methods And Materials:This descriptive-analytical study was carried out on 196 subjects who had influenza vaccination (influvac 2005/2006) and on 200 subjects who were matched with the vaccinated subjects by their ages in Gorgan which is located in the northeast of Iran. The subject's sera were prepared seven weeks after the influenza vaccination. Their serum antibody levels were determinated by the heamaglutination inhibition test.
Results:The antibody titre in 81 subjects of the vaccinated group and in 175 subjects of the control group was less then 1/40. The mean antibody titre of the vaccinated subjects and the control group was 143.4±10.89 and 18.34±3.2, respectively. The difference was statistically significant (P value=0.000).
Conclusion:The findings showed that the mean titre of the antibodies in the vaccinated and control groups was statistically different. This means that the influenza vaccine has good efficacy in our population.
Flu vaccine, Influenza, Iran
Introduction
Influenza is a highly transmitted disease and about 10% of the world’s population is affected by this disease annually. Influenza is the sixth reason of death in the world and the forth reason of death in old people.
The virus is continuously undergoing antigenic changes and thus, it can bypass the host's acquired immunity to influenza (1).
The virus causing the disease is transmitted easily by coughing and sneezing, from person to person and spreads very fast in the society. Infection by the influenza virus without signs and symptoms may cause severe diseases or even death.
Almost 30 to 50 percent of the people infected by the virus do not have special signs and symptoms, but they can transmit the disease to others. The best way of prevention is vaccination.
Elderly individuals not only demonstrate a greater risk of morbidity and mortality due to influenza than the young, but also have a greater difficulty in mounting a protective response to the influenza vaccine (2).
The Disease Control Center of America reports that vaccination of people prevents them from getting the disease (70 to 90% of the cases in people under 60 years and 30 to 40% of the cases in people above 60 years old). According to a study in America, in all the 88 subjects who were vaccinated against influenza by the Haemaglutination inhibition test ( HI ), an increase in antibody levels was observed (3).
Increase in antibody titre was observed in 5000 subjects from different ages who were vaccinated against influenza in Poland using the Haemaglotination inhibition test ( HI ) (4).
In a study in France, 21 out of 285 subjects who were vaccinated against influenza showed changes in the levels of antibody serum (5).
In England, changes in the levels of antibody serum were observed in only 18.2% of the 137 subjects who were vaccinated and they were above 82 years old (6). In an observed study in Turkey in which the subjects were vaccinated against influenza, an increase in the antibody titre in the vaccinated group was observed (7). In a study in Norway, 19 subjects were vaccinated against influenza and an increase in the levels of antibody serum was observed in all the subjects (8). This study was designed in order to investigate the changes in the levels of antibody serum in the vaccinated subjects as compared to the unvaccinated ones and to specify the ratio of the increase in the antibody titre up to the level of prevention.
In this descriptive analytical research, 196 subjects were vaccinated against influenza by the vaccine "influ vac 2005/2006" which is made in Netherlands.The vaccine included 45 micrograms of Haemaglotination and Noraminidaz proteins and was extracted from the following viruses. After 7 weeks, they took transfusions of 5 milititres and their serum were collected and preserved under 20 ˚C until the experiment was carried out.
The Vaccine Virus Included
1-A/California/7/2/2004(H3N2)-Like strain (A/New York/55/2004 NYMC X-157)
2-A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-Like strain (A/New Caledonia/20/99 IVR-116)
3-B/Shanghai/361/2002-Like strain (B/Jiangsu/10/2003)
200 subjects who were as old as the vaccinated subjects were selected from blood donor samples and the serum was prepared. At the time of getting the sample, 196 subjects filled out the information collection from which demographic information was obtained. All of the vaccinated subjects and the control group were tested by the Haemaglutintion inhibition test to determine the anti-influenza antibody levels, by methods which were previously described (9),(10). A titre above 40 units of agglutination was considered by the preventive antibody Haemaglotination inhibition test (11).
The data of the antibody titration in serum and the demographic information was entered into the computer and the mean of the antibody titre of the studied groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects) was compared with appropriate statistical tests such as the T-test. The Chi-Square test was used to investigate the relationship between groups of different ages, genders and the existence of the preventive antibody in the subjects.
In this study, 396 subjects were included. In the case group, the male to female ratio was 0.9 and in the control group it was 0.8. The mean age of the vaccinated group was 52.2 ± 11 years and in the control group it was 48.6 ± 5.1 years.
Preventive levels of antibodies against influenza was found in 115 (58.7%) out of the 196 vaccinated subjects and in the control group, it was found in 15 subjests (7.5%).
Immunity levels against the influenza virus in the vaccinated subjects and controls according to the age groups is shown in (Table/Fig 1).
The mean antibody titre in the vaccinated and control groups were compared by the T-test, which showed a significant difference them(CI=95% :102.91-144.22; P value=0.000) (Table/Fig 2).
The comparison between the mean antibody titre between the two genders in the vaccinated group didn't show a significant difference by the T-test.
In this study, it was shown that the vaccine was efficient in the vaccinated group and moreover, the existence of these levels of the preventive antibody in 7.5% of the control group showed the circulation of the vaccine viruses among the Gorgan population; especially in one percent of these people, an antibody titre above 512 units of Haemaglutination was found.
A study in America showed that vaccination of subjects under 65 years is preventive in 70 to 90% of the cases and doesn't have any similarities to the results of our study, but for people above 65 years, the preventive level was found to be between 30 to 45% (5).
In our study , the preventive level was about 58.1% in the subjects between 60-80 years. A study in Turkey showed that in vaccinated subjects, the increase in the anti-influenza antibody titre was significant as compared to the control group and is similar to the results of our study (5).
The result of a study in Norway has shown an increase in the anti-influenza antibody titre in all vaccinated subjects (8).
In our study, this level included 58.7% of the vaccinated subjects, for which the reason might be the environmental and background factors involved in the vaccinated subjects. Another study has also reported antibody levels of 72%, which doesn't have any similarities to our study (12).
A study carried out in France reported a changing level of antibody titre in the vaccinated subjects to 7.4% (13).
A study carried out in Iran on 32370 Hajis, out of which 3465 of them were vaccinated with the influenza vaccine, prevented them from getting influenza like diseases in 52% of the cases as compared to the unvaccinated group (14).
This is similar to the results of our study. But these results depend on the conditions of choosing the samples, techniques for searching for the antibodies and underlying factors of the vaccinated subjects, environmental factors and especially, different age ranges of the subjects under investigation.
The mean antibody titre in the vaccinated subjects was 143.4 with an SE equal to 10.86 and in the control group, it was 18.34 with an SE equal to 3.2, that were statistically significantly different and these are similar to the results of the study which was carried out in Turkey (7).
One of the limitations of the research was the lack of measurement of the levels of the antibody titre against each specific injected vaccine viruses.
Finally, according to the results of the study, it is recommended that in the regions or countries where influenza is epidemic, vaccination against the influenza virus must be done, which is preventive in more than 50% of these subjects and prevent them from severe influenza and the side effects resulting from it.
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com