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
Letter to Editor
Full Version
Air bacterial isolations from operation theatres in a tertiary care hospital in India
Peroperative bacterial contamination of the wound is known to be a major risk factorfor surgical wound infection. The microbiological quality of theatre air is one of the significant parameter for controlling surgical wound infection. The present study was conducted in seven operation theatres of a tertiary care teaching hospital of capital city of India with 1000 beds for a period of one year. Settle plate method was adopted using standard sized Blood agar plates. A total of 344 samples taken repeatedly from seven different operation theatres were processed and the isolates were Staph aureus (16%), Coagulase negative Staph(26.7%), Acinetobacter spp.(2.03%) and Klebsiella spp. (0.3%). Crowding of surgical theatres by surgical staff, trainees and students is an important issue along with design, ventilation problems and overuse of theatres. This is the first Indian study conducted in order to determine air bacterial isolates in operation theatres.More studies are warranted on quality of air in operation theatres.
Peroperative bacterial contamination of the wound is known to be a major risk factor for surgical wound infection. In order to minimize this kind of wound contamination, focusing on air bacteria released by the Operating Theatre personnel, Ultra clean laminar flow (LAF) ventilation system is introduced for use in operating rooms (1),(2),(3),(4). Good hospital hygiene is an integral component for preventing Hospital Acquired Infections. The microbiological quality of theatre air is one of the significant parameter for controlling surgical wound infection. It has been calculated that for a procedure lasting approximately one hour, the total number of bacteria carrying particles falling in the wound is about 270 per cubic cm. The risk of infection depends on how many of these bacteria are viable at the time of wound closure, also species and virulence of the bacteria, the precise site oflodgment and integrity of patient’s host defense (5).
The present study was conducted in seven operation theatres of a tertiary care teaching hospital of capital city of India with 1000 beds for a period of one year. Aim of this study was to assess the degree of contamination of the hospital operation theatres. Surfaces (floor, walls, other horizontal surfaces and all the easily accessible items) were cleaned with detergents and carbolised at least once a day. None of the operation theatres are equipped with laminar flow or any other air flow system. Settle plate method was adopted using standard sized MacKonkey’s agar and Blood agar plates. Plates used were pre-incubated overnight under the conditions that matched incubation of air samples to be taken. This allowed the plates with contaminants to be discarded. Plates were placed on the floors, Operation theatre tables and other horizontal surfaces and were exposed for one hour. Various sites chosen in the operation theatres were operating rooms, scrubbing room, autoclaving room and recovery room. After exposure of one hour that allows sufficient time for settling of particles in natural and efficient manner, plates were incubated in the incubator overnight at 370C. Next day colonies were counted and the representative colonies from each plate were picked up and confirmed by colonial morphology, Gram’s staining and biochemical reactions (2). Staph aureus isolates were tested for antibiotic susceptibility according to standard procedures by Kirby Bauer method on Mueller Hinton agar.
A total of 344 samples taken repeatedly from seven different operation theatres were processed and the isolates were Staph aureus (16%), Coagulase negative Staph(26.7%), Acinetobacter spp.(2.03%) and Klebsiella spp. (0.3%) . Term ‘contaminants’ is used for isolates other than pathogens (Table/Fig 1).
In the present study no attempt was made to record the number of people entering the rooms. The greatest effect on number is movement and presence of the patient and theatre staff in the theatre. Bacterial species identified were mostly Coagulase negative Staphylococci which is similar to another report (6).
Nasopharyngeal shedding from person participating in the operation can be the source of these airborne contaminants (7). Also, microscopic skin fragments are given off by the staff in theatres. These fragments get contaminated with micro colonies of bacteria resident or perhaps present on the individual’s skin. Whilst individuals will have different dispersion levels, overall dispersion is increased with movement and number of individuals present. Staph aureus were mostly sensitive to most of the commonly used antibiotics (tetracycline,erythromycin,cephalexin,gentamicin,ciprofloxacin, ofloxacin, oxacillin,vancomycin, cefuroxime etc).Gram positive bacteria could be detected significantly and frequently as compared to Gram negative bacteria which are less often isolated from the environment. Crowding of surgical theatres by surgical staff, trainees and students is an important issue along with design, ventilation problems and overuse of theatres. Though settle plate method may be regarded as crude measure of airborne contamination but does provide a simple and cost effective way of enumerating the contamination rate of horizontal surfaces at multiple points. The results indicate exclusion from operation theatres of those with skin conditions at least in ultra clean surgery.
Slit samplers allows sampling over a short time period comparatively and hence indicates the occurrence of individual events like influx of excess personnel and unnecessarily opening the door. These events are lost while using settle plates since sampling is done for comparatively longer time periods. There are no standardized methods available in the country for air sampling in Operation Theatres or for its frequency and also no report on the prevalence of types of bacteria is available. At present, there is no international consensus on the methods, types of samples (settle plate versus volumetric air sampling) frequencies of sampling and tolerable limits of bioburden in Operation Theatres. This is the first Indian study conducted in order to determine air bacterial isolates in operation theatres.
Conflict of Interest: None declared
- 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