Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 55412

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
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

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


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

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : March | Volume : 18 | Issue : 3 | Page : QC10 - QC13 Full Version

Association of the 24-hour Pregnancy Unique Quantification of Emesis Index with Self-Rated Wellbeing Score: A Cross-Sectional Study


Published: March 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/68348.19209
Nisha Bhatia, Krishna Kumari Meka, Fozia Jeelani Wani

1. Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 2. Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Nisha Bhatia,
C 601, Welkkin Park, Prakashnagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016, Telangana, India.
E-mail: nishaaug17@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy (NVP) are common symptoms of pregnancy. Often, treatment is guided by subjective symptoms, leading to hospitalisation of these patients and unnecessary health costs. The 24-hour Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) index helps objectively quantify these symptoms and guide the management of these patients.

Aim: To assess the association of the 24-hour PUQE index with the self-rated well-being score in evaluating the severity of NVP.

Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 207 women at 5 to 12 weeks of singleton pregnancy were recruited after obtaining informed consent. They were interviewed regarding their symptoms of nausea and vomiting based on a 24-hour PUQE index questionnaire, and a score was assigned to them. They were stratified as mild, moderate, or severe based on the score. The association of these symptoms with a self-rated well-being score and subjective symptoms such as the ability to take multivitamins, sleep pattern, liquid intake, and the need for hospitalisation was assessed. They were followed-up after four weeks, and a repeat score was obtained. Chi-square test was performed to compare the severity of PUQE-24.

Results: The mean well-being score at the first visit was 3.381±1.650, and at the follow-up visit, it was 7±1.763. At the first visit, 46 out of 207 had a mild 24-hour PUQE score, 140 out of 207 had a moderate score, and 21 out of 207 had a severe score. During the follow-up visit, 123 out of 207 had a mild score, 77 out of 207 had a moderate score, and seven out of 207 had a severe score. There was a significant association between the mean self-rated well-being score and the 24-hour PUQE score at the first and follow-up visits (p-value=0.0001). Among the patients hospitalised at the first visit (21 out of 28), 75% belonged to the severe PUQE category. The mean liquid intake at the first visit was 24.363±10.357 mL/kg/hr, and at the follow-up visit was 29.972±10.691, showing a significant association with the severity of the 24-hour PUQE score (p-value=0.0001). A significant association was observed between the 24-hour PUQE scores of the first and follow-up visits (p-value=0.002).

Conclusion: In this study, there was a significant association between the 24-hour PUQE score and the well-being score at both visits. Stratifying the severity of NVP objectively will guide us to choose the appropriate treatment and reduce the need for hospitalisation.

Keywords

Antenatal, Antiemetics, Hospitalisation, Score

NVP are among the most common symptoms in early pregnancy, affecting 50-80% of pregnancies with variable severity. It can start as early as four weeks, peaks at nine weeks, and typically resolves by 16 weeks of gestation (1). The most severe form of NVP is hyperemesis gravidarum, which may require hospitalisation (2). The clinical features of nutritional disturbances, weight loss, dehydration, and ketonuria may lead to hospitalisation (2). The routine practice for managing nausea and vomiting during pregnancy involves assessing subjective symptoms such as the ability to take multivitamins, liquid intake, the rate of hospitalisation or emergency room visits, and a woman’s perception of her well-being (2). Koren G and Cohen R developed a score to objectively assess the severity of NVP. The score, called the PUQE and Nausea, is found to be a promising tool for determining the burden or treatment outcome of NVP (3),(4). This score was developed for pregnant women based on the Rhodes Index of Nausea and Vomiting (INV; Rhodes et al., 1984), which focused on three symptoms: nausea, vomiting, and retching (5). The original PUQE involved rating the daily number of vomiting episodes, the length of nausea in hours per day, and the number of retching episodes per 12 hours, and was validated by Koren G and Cohen R (3). The Modified-PUQE (PUQE-24) was proposed by Lacasse A et al., which is scored over 24 hours with the same calculation and interpretation as the original PUQE (6). This score is widely used as a scoring system to assess the severity of NVP in many countries (6).

The management of NVP can be decided based on the 24-hour PUQE score (7). In the majority of women with mild to moderate PUQE scores, symptoms subside with conservative treatment involving dietary advice and multivitamins initially, followed by antiemetics such as doxylamine, metoclopramide, ondansetron, etc., based on severity. Patients with severe PUQE scores may require hospitalisation (7). The lack of quantification of severity adds to health costs by increasing hospitalisation and the usage of antiemetic medications (7). Therefore, this study was conducted to assess the 24-hour PUQE Index as a tool to measure the severity of NVP compared to their self-rated well-being score and subjective symptoms.

Material and Methods

The present cross-sectional study was conducted at the Apollo Institute of Medical Sciences and Research in Hyderabad from July 2019 to December 2022. The study was approved by the institutional review board (AIMSR/IRB/RC/2018/07/050).

Inclusion criteria: All antenatal women with 5 to 12 weeks of singleton gestation presenting with NVP who were willing for a follow-up visit after four weeks were recruited in the study after providing informed consent.

Exclusion criteria: Pregnant women with multiple pregnancies, known cases of hyperthyroidism, liver disorders, or gastrointestinal disorders were excluded from the study.

Sample size: The sample size was calculated as 207 using a prevalence of 75% (8), a 95% confidence interval, and a 5% margin of error using the formula

n=Z2P (1-P)/d2

where n=Sample size, Z=Z statistic for a level of confidence (1.645 for a 95% confidence level), P= Expected prevalence or proportion, and d= Precision.

Study Procedure

The study subjects were interviewed regarding their symptoms of nausea and vomiting based on a questionnaire. The questionnaire was validated by two subject experts. A pilot study was conducted with 10 antenatal mothers, who found all the questions easy and understandable. The questionnaire consisted of two parts to record two visits. In the first visit, the socio-demographic profile of the patient was recorded, such as age, gravidity, marital status, employment, socio-economic status, use of prenatal vitamins, and history of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Part A of the questionnaire measured the 24-hour PUQE index. A score was assigned to them, and they were stratified as mild, moderate, or severe based on the score: mild NVP≤6; moderate NVP 7-12; severe NVP≥13 (1).

Part B of the questionnaire included information regarding subjective symptoms of patients, such as the ability to take multivitamins, liquid intake/kg/day, quality of sleep, and a well-being score that was self-rated by the patient. The well-being score was taken on a scale of 1-10 based on a visual analog scale to rate their overall well-being on their worst day of NVP. The VAS consisted of a 10-cm horizontal line with “0” at one end (“the worst possible”) and “10” at the other end (“the best I feel”). This scale was based on a study done by Choi HJ et al., (9). Treatment given, such as multivitamins, antiemetics, or hospitalisation, was also recorded in the questionnaire. This was followed by a follow-up visit after four weeks where Part A and Part B of the questionnaire were filled out again, and a change in the PUQE score and other subjective symptoms were noted.

Statistical Analysis

Chi-square analysis was performed to compare the severity of PUQE-24 (mild, moderate, severe) at presentation and the use of multivitamin supplements, as well as rates of hospitalisation, quality of sleep, and liquid intake. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and a 2-tailed p-value of 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 207 antenatal women with NVP were included in the study. The mean age of presentation for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy was 8.8±1.270 weeks.

In the present study, 180 out of 207 (87%) women presenting with NVP were less than 30 years of age. Additionally, 146 out of 207 (70.5%) women were primigravida. Approximately, two-thirds were unemployed and had received only primary education. During the first visit, 46 out of 207 had mild, 140 out of 207 had moderate, and 21 out of 207 had severe 24-hour PUQE scores. There was a statistically significant association between parity, married life, education, employment status, consumption of prenatal vitamins, past history of NVP, and the severity of the 24-hour PUQE score (p-value <0.05) (Table/Fig 1).

In the first visit, two-thirds of patients with a well-being score of 5 or less had a moderate 24-hour PUQE score. Additionally, 25 out of 31 (80.6%) patients with a well-being score higher than five had a mild 24-hour PUQE score. There was a significant statistical association between the mean self-rated well-being score and the severity of the 24-hour PUQE score at the first visit (p-value=0.0001). Among the hospitalised patients, seven out of 28 (25%) had a moderate 24-hour PUQE score, while 21 out of 28 (75%) had a severe 24-hour PUQE score. There was a statistically significant association between the treatment given at the first visit and the severity of the PUQE score (p-value 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant association between the type of sleep pattern and the severity of the 24-hour PUQE score at the first visit (p-value=0.002). The mean liquid intake value was almost half (17.2 mL/kg/24 hr) in patients presenting with a severe PUQE score in the initial visit (Table/Fig 2).

In the follow-up visit, 123 out of 207 had a mild, 77 out of 207 had a moderate, and seven out of 207 had a severe 24-hour PUQE score. A statistically significant association was found between the mean well-being score and the severity of nausea and vomiting as per the 24-hour PUQE score in the follow-up visit (p-value=0.0001). Mean well-being score improved in the follow-up visit. During the follow-up visit, among the patients taking multivitamins, 39 out of 67 (58.3%) had a mild 24-hour PUQE score, while only seven out of 67 (10.4%) had a severe 24-hour PUQE score. There was a significant association between the treatment and the follow-up PUQE scores (p-value=0.02) (Table/Fig 3).

Thirty nine out of 46 patients (84.8%) with a mild 24-hour PUQE score had mild symptoms at the follow-up visit. More than half of the patients with a moderate 24-hour PUQE score at the first visit had regressed to a mild 24-hour PUQE score at the follow-up visit, while only seven out of 140 (5%) progressed to a severe 24-hour PUQE score. Among patients presenting with a severe 24-hour PUQE score at the first visit, 14 out of 21 (66.7%) had regressed to moderate symptoms. Regression analysis showed that there was a statistically significant association between the 24-hour PUQE scores of the first and follow-up visits (p-value=0.002) (Table/Fig 4).

Discussion

The NVP are the most common symptoms with which women present in the first trimester of pregnancy (9). In the present study, most of the women who presented with NVP were under the age of 30, primigravida, unemployed, and belonged to a low socio-economic class. This socio-demographic profile was similar to a study conducted by Latifah L et al., (10). The mean gestational age of presentation with nausea and vomiting in the present study was 8.8 weeks ±1.27. A similar presentation was seen in a study conducted by Lacroix R et al., where patients presented with NVP at around eight weeks, and symptoms peaked at 11 weeks (11). Similar weeks of gestation of presentation with nausea and vomiting have been reported in studies done by Kugahara T and Ohashi K (12).

The evaluation of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy using the 24-hour PUQE score has been conducted in various studies in the literature, but there are very few Indian studies that have compared the 24-hour PUQE score with well-being scores and subjective symptoms. In a study by Choi HJ et al., in Korea, on the worst day of NVP, 37% reported a mildly severe PUQE score, 56.2% reported a moderately severe score, and 6.8% reported a severe score (9). Similarly, in the present study, most of the women presenting with NVP had a moderate 24-hour PUQE score (140 out of 207). This was similar to a study done by Jha SK and Shrivastava VR (13). The 24-hour PUQE score was significantly associated with the well-being score at the first visit. The lower the PUQE score, the higher the well-being score, which was similar to the study conducted by Ebrahimi N et al., and Lacasse A et al., where PUQE-24 scores correlated strongly with the self-rated well-being scores (1),(6). In a PUQE validation study by Koren G and Cohen R the original PUQE was studied along with well-being scores, and they found that a lower value in the well-being score correlated with higher PUQE scores in the first visit (3). In order to validate the modified PUQE scale, external parameters were used that reflect clinically the severity of the woman’s symptoms. One of these parameters, multivitamin use, is indicative of the severity of NVP, since women tend to discontinue the use of multivitamin supplements when experiencing severe nausea or gastrointestinal symptoms. Continuation of multivitamins was significantly associated with the severity of the 24-hour PUQE score in both the first and follow-up visits. A similar observation was noted by Ebrahami N et al., and Birkeland E et al., (1),(14). The 24-hour PUQE scoring has helped in guiding treatment in patients with NVP (14). In a recent study by Laitinen L et al., quantifying the severity of NVP by the 24-hour PUQE score reduced the rate of hospitalisation and objectively indicated alleviation of symptoms (15). This was also observed in the present study where 24-hour PUQE scores showed a statistically significant improvement in the follow-up visit. Hada A et al., also concluded that the 24-hour PUQE score is a promising tool in diagnosing and assessing the severity of NVP (2).

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2018 bulletin on NVP, a woman’s perception of the severity of her symptoms plays a critical role in the decision of whether, when, and how to treat NVP (16). The correlation of 24-hour PUQE scores with subjective symptoms has been studied in a few previous works (17),(18). Sleep pattern and liquid intake were the two subjective symptoms evaluated in the present study. In a study by Ebrahami N et al., no correlation was found between the 24-hour PUQE score and the sleep and hydration status of the patient (1). However, in the present study, a statistically significant association between sleep pattern and the severity of the PUQE score in the first and follow-up visits was noted. Regarding liquid intake, in the present study, a significant association was found between reduced liquid intake and the severity of the PUQE score in both the first and follow-up visits. This observation has also been noted as a severity of disease determinant by Koot MH et al., (7).

The most significant factor evaluated in the present study was the need for hospitalisation. In the present study, all patients with a severe PUQE score in the initial visit required hospitalisation, while most of the patients with a moderate PUQE score subsided with outpatient treatment. Therefore, distinguishing the severity of NVP will help in the early identification of moderate PUQE score cases, and timely treatment may prevent their hospitalisation. This increases the power of this new tool not only to predict severity but also to identify the more vulnerable group of women who are at risk of developing Hyperemesis, thereby providing women and their health-care providers with an opportunity to reduce healthcare costs that arise due to hospitalisation. This observation was similar to the study done by Ebrahami N et al., (1).

In a recent study by Dochez V et al., the 24-hour PUQE score found a significant correlation with the rate of hospitalisation well-being score, and the need for intravenous antiemetics (17). This finding was similar to the present study, where the 24-hour PUQE score has shown a significant association with the type of treatment offered and the severity of the 24-hour PUQE score in both the first and follow-up visits.

As a prognostic tool, the PUQE score also helped in objectively confirming the improvement of symptoms. Since, the PUQE score correlated with the subjective symptoms, it promises to have a significant use in research to evaluate treatment options in an objective manner (18).

Limitation(s)

As a follow-up study, only 207 patients could be recruited. Most of the observations are self-reported. Further concordance of information could have been obtained by interviewing the family. Recall bias could also affect the results. Patients who were hospitalised in the follow-up visit based on subjective symptoms had mild or moderate PUQE scores; hence, admission could have been avoided.

Conclusion

The 24-hour PUQE score is associated well with the self-rated wellbeing score in the first antenatal visit and subjective symptoms such as liquid intake sleep pattern, and continuation of multivitamins in patients with NVP. It is also a promising objective tool for research in NVP, as it significantly correlates with subjective symptoms in followup visits. The 24-hour PUQE score helps stratify patients into mild, moderate, and severe categories, thereby aiding in the selection of the appropriate mode of treatment for the patient and reducing the rate of hospitalisation. Admissions for NVP can be avoided if the 24-hour PUQE score is strictly followed as the standard criteria for hospitalisation. Further studies are required to evaluate the role of the 24-hour PUQE score in assessing the severity of NVP and its effect on reducing the rate of hospitalisation.

References

1.
Ebrahimi N, Maltepe C, Bournissen FG, Koren G. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: Using the 24-hour Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE-24) scale. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31(9):803-07. Doi: 10.1016/ S1701-2163(16)34298-0. PMID: 19941704. [crossref][PubMed]
2.
Hada A, Minatani M, Wakamatsu M, Koren G, Kitamura T. The Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE-24): Configural, measurement, and structural invariance between nulliparas and multiparas and across two measurement time points. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(11):1553. Doi: 10.3390/ healthcare9111553. PMID: 34828598; PMCID: PMC8618060. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Koren G, Cohen R. Measuring the severity of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy; A 20-year perspective on the use of the pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis (PUQE). J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(3):335-39. Doi: 10.1080/01443615.2020.1787968. Epub 2020 Aug 19. PMID: 32811235. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Tan A, Lowe S, Henry A. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: Effects on quality of life and day-to-day function. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(3):278-90. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Rhodes VA, Watson PM, Johnson MH. Development of reliable and valid measures of nausea and vomiting. Cancer Nurs. 1984;7(1):33-42. [crossref][PubMed]
6.
Lacasse A, Rey E, Ferreira E, Morin C, Bérard A. Validity of a modified Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea (PUQE) scoring index to assess severity of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(1):71.e1-7. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.05.051. PMID: 18166311. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Koot MH, Grooten IJ, Van Der Post JA, Bais JM, Ris-Stalpers C, Leeflang MM, et al. Determinants of disease course and severity in hyperemesis gravidarum. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;245:162-67. [crossref][PubMed]
8.
Herrell HE. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Am Fam Physician. 2014;89(12):965-70. PMID: 25162163.
9.
Choi HJ, Bae YJ, Choi JS, Ahn HK, An HS, Hong DS, et al. Evaluation of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy using the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea scale in Korea. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018;61(1):30-37. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Latifah L Setiawati N, Aprilia Kartikasari, Kusmiati E. Socio demographic characteristics of pregnant women who are experiencing nausea vomiting in rural areas of Banyumas regency. SHS web of conferences. 2020:86;07. [crossref]
11.
Lacroix R, Eason E, Melzack R. Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: A prospective study of its frequency, intensity, and patterns of change. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(4):931-37. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Kugahara T, Ohashi K. Characteristics of nausea and vomiting in pregnant Japanese women. Nurs Health Sci. 2006;8(3):179-84. Doi: 10.1111/j.1442- 2018.2006.00279.x. PMID: 16911179. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Jha SK, Shrivastava VR. Prevalence of hyperemesis gravidarum using the 24- hour pregnancy unique quantification of emesis scale scoring-A descriptive study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2023;12(3):528-32. [crossref]
14.
Birkeland E, Stokke G, Tangvik RJ, Torkildsen EA, Boateng J, Wollen AL, et al. Norwegian PUQE (Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis and Nausea) identifies patients with hyperemesis gravidarum and poor nutritional intake: A prospective cohort validation study. Laine K, editor. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0119962. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Laitinen L, Nurmi M, Rautava P, Koivisto M, Polo-Kantola P. Sleep quality in women with nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):152. Doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-03639-2. PMID: 33607953; PMCID: PMC7893929. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 189. Obstetrics & Gynecology [Internet]. 2018;131(1):e15-30. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Dochez V, Dimet J, David-Gruselle A, Le Thuaut A, Ducarme G. Validation of specific questionnaires to assess nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in a French population. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;134(3):294-98. Doi: 10.1016/j. ijgo.2016.01.023. Epub 2016 May 19. PMID: 27262942. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Ellilä P, Laitinen L, Nurmi M, Rautava P, Koivisto M, Polo-Kantola P. Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: A study with pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis questionnaire. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;230:60-67.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/68348.19209

Date of Submission: Oct 30, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Nov 15, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jan 15, 2024
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 03, 2023
• Manual Googling: Nov 13, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jan 12, 2024 (16%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 8

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • 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
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com