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
Evaluation Of Biochemical Parameters To Differentiate Transudates From Exudates In Certain Diseases
Correspondence Address :
Anita B. Kale, MD Biochemistry, Associate Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, Maharashtra.(India)
Ph.no.09850620123.
Email- anitachalak@rediffmail.com
Background: Pleural effusion is a common occurrence in medicine wards/OPD. To determine the cause of the pleural effusion is not always easy. The distinction between an exudate and a transudate is the first and the most important step in the differential diagnosis of a pleural effusion. Several biochemical markers are used to classify the type of pleural effusion. The oldest and the most conventional way of classifying the pleural effusion is by the Light’s criteria. There are multiple other biochemical markers which are available, the diagnostic accuracy of which is not well established and is a subject of debate.
Aim: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the pleural fluid protein, LDH, cholesterol, bilirubin and their ratio with serum values, as well as the albumin gradient in differentiating the pleural fluid into transudate and exudate .
Materials And Methods: A total of 50 cases of pleural effusion due to different diseases were analysed using certain biochemical parameters like pleural fluid cholesterol, protein and LDH. Their ratio with serum values and the albumin gradient were also analysed.
Statistical Analysis: ROC curves were drawn for individual markers and the areas under the curve were computed and compared using the SPSS version 17. The optimal cut off with a combination of highest sensitivity and specificity was defined.
Result: The pleural fluid protein, its ratio to serum protein and pleural fluid LDH had excellent diagnostic accuracy in differentiating exudative pleural effusions from transudative effusions. Pleural fluid LDH levels were not influenced by serum LDH levels. The optimal threshold for pleural fluid LDH was 175 IU/L.
Conclusion: The pleural fluid to serum protein ratio and pleural fluid LDH had excellent diagnostic accuracy in classifying the pleural fluid type. A single test pleural fluid LDH had diagnostic performance higher than or comparable to most of the other biochemical parameters.
Transudate, Exudate, Lactate dehydrogenase, Cholesterol, Albumin gradient
Introduction
Clinical evaluation of a patient with pleural effusion relies heavily upon the examination of the fluid which is obtained by thoracentesis. Defining the exact aetiology is difficult and is not always possible. The pleural effusion is most conveniently separated into trasudate (ultra filtrates of plasma resulting from increased hydrostatic pressure or profoundly decreased serum oncotic pressure) and exudate (protein-rich effusions resulting from increased capillary permeability depending upon their characteristics)(1),(2). Such discrimination directs towards the nature of the underlying disorder and is helpful in narrowing down the possible aetiologies. A transudative effusion might not warrant further diagnostic procedures, whereas in exudative effusion, further detailed investigations might need to be carried out to establish the cause. Multiple biochemical markers are used to differentiate the exudates from the transudates. The conventional method for classifying the pleural fluid is based on Light’s criteria. As per Light’s criteria, an effusion is termed as exudative if the pleural fluid to serum ratio of the total protein (TPR) is >/= 0.5, if the pleural fluid absolute lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level is >/= 200 IU/L, or if the pleural fluid to serum ratio of LDH (LDHR) is >0.6 and as transudative if the TPR is <0.5, if the fLDH level is <200 IU/L and the LDHR is <0.6. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of the pleural fluid protein, pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase, pleural fluid total cholesterol and pleural fluid bilirubin, their ratios to serum values and pleural fluid albumin as well as the albumin gradient (serum-fluid albumin) in differentiating pleural fluids into transudates and exudates (3).
The present study was carried out at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad and was approved by the institutional ethical committee. A total of 50 patients having pleural effusions and suffering from various diseases were included in this study. Pleural fluids and blood samples were taken simultaneously in the fasting state. The blood and pleural fluids were collected in plain sterile bulbs. Serum and pleural fluid LDH was estimated by a modified IFCC method (4). Serum and pleural fluid total protein was estimated by the Biuret method (5),(6),(7). Serum and pleural fluid albumin was estimated by the BCG dye binding method (7),(8),(9). Serum and pleural fluid cholesterol was estimated by the CHOD-PAP method (10). The pleural fluid to serum ratio of the above mentioned markers were calculated. The albumin gradient was calculated by computing the difference between the serum and pleural albumin levels. The enrolled subjects were grouped into exudates and transudates based on Light’s criteria (11),(12),(13),(14),(15),(16),(17).
Statistical Analysis
ROC curves were drawn for individual markers and the areas under the curve were computed and compared using SPSS version 17. The optimal cut off with a combination of highest sensitivity and specificity was defined from the table of coordinates of the parameters (based upon the value with the highest sum of sensitivity and specificity).
A total of 50 patients with pleural effusions were analysed. In nine, the pleural effusions were transudative and the remaining 41 of the 50 were exudative, as per Light’s criteria. The socioeconomic and the nutritional aspects of the groups were comparable. The ROC curves of individual biochemical parameters (pleural fluid value) and their ratio/difference with serum values are depicted in (Table/Fig 1) and (Table/Fig 2). The numerical values of optimal threshold with their sensitivity/specificity are shown in (Table/Fig 3). Values of area under curve for each parameters is shown in (Table/Fig 4). The pleural fluid levels of LDH and total protein and their ratios with serum levels had the highest value of AUC and fluid bilirubin had the lowest value.
(Table/Fig 3)The optimal discriminatory cut off values for each parameter in differentiating exudates from transudates.
(Table/Fig 4) area under ROC curve for individual biochemical parameter/ratios
Correlation between serum levels and pleural fluid levels of different parameters is shown in (Table/Fig 5). All parameters other than LDH showed a significant correlation between serum and pleural fluid values.
(Table/Fig 5) Correlation between serum levels and pleural fluid levels of biochemical parameters
Differentiating the pleural fluid in a transudate or an exudate is an important step in the evaluation of pleural effusions. The conventional method which is used to classify pleural fluid is the Light’s criteria, which is based upon the pleural fluid to serum protein ratio, pleural fluid LDH levels and the pleural fluid to serum LDH ratio. The accuracy of these tests has been reported to be 100% (18). However, classifying pleural effusion on the basis of the above mentioned criteria needs the measurement of 4 biochemical parameters, the pleural fluid total protein, serum total protein, pleural fluid LDH and serum LDH levels. As an individual parameter, each of the above parameters has different sensitivities and specificities and pleural fluid LDH has been reported to be the more sensitive and specific than the total protein ratio or the LDH ratio (19), (20). In our study, we observed an excellent discriminatory accuracy of pleural fluid protein and LDH levels (and their ratios with serum), AUC 0.99. Pleural fluid cholesterol and its ratio with serum also had good discriminatory ability with AUC >0.9. Pleural fluid bilirubin and the albumin gradient had the least discriminatory accuracy. These observations reaffirm the utility of Pleural fluid to serum protein and the LDH ratio , as well as pleural fluid LDH levels in differentiating exudative pleural effusions.
The basis for using the pleural fluid to serum ratio of protein and LDH (rather than using absolute pleural fluid levels) is that their pleural fluid levels might be influenced by the changes in serum levels and so, absolute pleural fluid levels might give erroneous results in the face of varying serum levels. In our study, the pleural fluid levels of all biochemical parameters other than LDH showed a statistically significant correlation with serum values (though the correlation coefficient was poor for most parameters). The pleural fluid LDH levels were not influenced by the serum levels and hence, pleural fluid LDH can independently (rather than its ratio to the serum level) be used in classifying pleural effusion. Our observation is similar to the report by Joseph et al and it is suggested that in classifying pleural fluid, the absolute fluid value rather than its ratio with serum levels, should be used as it will save the cost of serum testing. Further, there is a possibility of the misclassification of the pleural fluid into exudates in the face of low serum LDH levels, as low serum LDH levels can result in high LDHR, thus causing the false classification of a transudate as an exudates (20).
The optimal cut off of pleural fluid LDH levels to define exudates as per Light’s criteria is >200 IU/L. The optimal threshold for pleural fluid LDH in our study was much lower (175 IU/L) than those suggested by Light. Similarly, a lower cut off point (163 IU/L) has been reported by Joseph et al (20). We suggest that the optimal threshold for pleural fluid LDH levels should be redefined and validated in a larger study with a higher number of subjects.
To summarize that pleural fluid to serum protein ratio and pleural fluid LDH have excellent diagnostic accuracy in classifying the pleural fluid type. A single test, the pleural fluid LDH has a performance which is comparable to the other parameters. The optimal cut off point of pleural fluid LDH still needs to be addressed.
- 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