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
The Antimicrobial Resistance Pattern In The Clinical Isolates Of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa In A Tertiary Care Hospital; 2008-2010 (A 3 Year Study)
Correspondence Address :
K.M.MohanasoundaramM.D.,(Micro)
Associate professor
Department of Microbiology
Vinayaka Missions Medical College, Salem
Email-mohanapalani@gmail.com
Mobile-94431-32290
Introduction: Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an opportunistic human pathogen and is the leading cause of nosocomial infections especially among patients admitted to intensive care units. (ICU).It has been implicated in diverse nosocomial infections. In recent years, a considerable increase in the prevalence and multidrug resistance (MDR) P.aeruginosa has been noticed with high morbidity and mortality. So we aimed in the present study to determine the status of antimicrobial resistance to individual antipseudomonal agents and the magnitude of multidrug resistance in these organisms. The aim of the study was to retrospectively analyze and determine the distribution rate and antimicrobial resistance pattern in P.aeruginosa among clinical specimens for a period of 3 years.
Methods: P.aeruginosa were isolated and identified by conventional methods. The antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method. The clinical and specimen distribution properties of P.aeruginosa were evaluated based on their resistance.
Results: The isolation rate of P.aeruginosa in this study was 5%, 6.8% and 5% in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively. Pus, tracheal aspirates and urine were important sources of P.aeruginosaisolation in ICU and non ICU inpatients. Resistance rates of pseudomonas varied with the antibiotics and the high resistance observed was related to the increased use of broad spectrum antibiotics. Multidrug resistance P.aeruginosa is on the rise especially in nosocomial infections. Hence rigorous monitoring of MDR strains, restriction of inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents and adherence of infection control practices should be emphasized to delay the emergence of clinically significant MDR-P.aeruginosa
Conclusion: To conclude, although multidrug resistance has commonly been reported in nosocomial P.aeruginosa, community acquired data are less frequently reported. For this reason epidemiological studies on the prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of resistant isolates in different geographical settings would provide useful information to guide clinicians in their choice of therapy and to contribute to the global picture of antimicrobial resistance. Rigorous monitoring of MDR in P.aeruginosa, restriction of the inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents and adherence of infection control practices should be emphasized to delay the emergence of clinically significant P.aeruginosa.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, ICU, multidrug resistance
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an aerobic, motile, gram negative rod that belongs to the family, pseudomonadaceae (1). Being an opportunistic human pathogen, it is the leading cause of nosocomial infections, especially among patients who are admitted to intensive care units. (ICU). It has been implicated in diverse nosocomial infections like nosocomial pneumonias, urinary tract infections (UTIs), skin and soft tissue infections, in severe burns and in infections in immunocompromised individuals. Of particular concern is the limited number of effective antipseudomonal agents which are used in the therapeutic practice, due to the constitutive low level resistance to several agents and the multiplicity of the mechanisms of resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa (2).
Its general resistance is due to a combination of factors.(3) It is intrinsically resistant to antimicrobial agents, due to the low permeability of its cell wall. It has the genetic capacity to express a wide repertoire of resistance mechanisms.
It can become resistant through mutations in the chromosomal genes which regulate the resistance genes. It can acquire additional resistance genes from other organisms via plasmids, transposons and bacteriophages.
In recent years, a considerable increase in the prevalence of multidrug resistance (MDR) in P.aeruginosa has been noticed, which is related to high morbidity and mortality(2), (4). Regional variations in the antibiotic resistance exist for different organisms, including P.aeruginosa and this may be related to the difference in the antibiotic prescribing habits.
The periodic testing and analysis of antibiotic resistance would enable the physicians to detect the trends in the resistance pattern to the commonly prescribed antibiotics in a given organism. So, we aimed in the present study, to determine the status of antimicrobial resistance to individual antipseudomonal agents and the magnitude of the multidrug resistance in these organisms.
The patient’s clinical data (including age, sex, location in the ICU or the non –ICU, clinical diagnosis and specimen type) and the results of the P.aeruginosa susceptibility testing were obtained during the period from 2008-2010.When there were identical isolates from the same patient, only one isolate was included. The bacterial isolates were considered as inpatient isolates if they were cultured more than 48 hours after admission.
A total of 370 clinical isolates from various samples such as pus, urine, sputum, blood, ET tubes and other specimens from the in and out patients which were received over a period of 3 years from 2008-2010, were analyzed.
IDENTIFICATION
The isolates were identified by conventional methods. The strains were identified as P.aeruginosa, based on the colony morphology, gram staining, oxidase reaction, the production of the pyocyanin pigment, nitrate reduction, the use of citrate and malonate as carbon sources, and its ability to grow at 5˚C and 42˚C. The P.aeruginosa ATCC 27853 strain was used as the quality control. The susceptibility testing of P.aeruginosa was performed by the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method and the results were interpreted according to the CLSI guidelines5. The antibiotics which were tested were ciprofloxacin(Ce), levofloxacin(Le), gentamicin(G), amikacin(Ak), ceftazidime(Ca), cefepime(Cpm), piperacillin/ tazobactum(Pt), cefeperazone /sulbactum(Cfs) and imepenem(I).
The results which were obtained are depicted in the table as follows:
(Table/Fig 1)(Table/Fig 2)(Table/Fig 3)(Table/Fig 4)(Table/Fig 5)(Table/Fig 6)
Bacterial resistance has been emerging and this has both clinical and financial implications for the therapy of infected patients(3),(4). P.aeruginosa is a major cause of nosocomial infections. Despite the advances in sanitation facilities and the introduction of a wide variety of antimicrobial agents with antipseudomonal activities, life threatening infections which are caused by P.aeruginosa continue to be hospital based infections.
The distribution of the isolates is significantly affected by the type of hospital from which they have been isolated. The isolation rate due to nosocomial infections was 3-16% in multi centre studies(5)(6). In this study, the isolation rate was 4%, 6.8% and 4% in 2008, 2009 and 2010 respectively, which was relatively low when compared to similar studies with a high prevalence.
The isolation rate was significant in the ICUs in our study (p0.05). Intensive care patients create an environment for infection because of the debilitating effect of a prolonged hospitalization and the application of medical equipment (airway, catheters etc). A high prevalence of pseudomonas infections was found in the 35-50 years age group. The prevalence rate of P.aeruginosa ranged from 10.5 to 30% and one study from India reported a prevalence rate of 20.3%7.
The prevalence of the P.aeruginosa isolates varied with the clinical conditions and the specimens. The highest number of isolates was from pus and endotracheal tubes.
The unique feature of P.aeruginosa is its resistance to a variety of antibiotics, which is attributed to a low permeability of the cell wall, the production of inducible cephalosporinsaes, an active efflux and a poor affinity for the target (DNAgyrase)(8). More resistant strains in the ICU and increasing morbidity and mortality with a high multiresistance among bacteria seem to be an important problem.
In various studies which investigated the resistance of P.aeruginosa to ciprofloxacin, the proportion was reported to be 0-89%9. In the present study, the overall resistance to ciprofloxacin was around 63.1%.
Levofloxacin has some added advantages such as its effectiveness against gram positive bacteria, its ability to concentrate more in the urine and its use in the form of single daily doses. The activity of levofloxacin is equal to or less than ciprofloxacin. We found that the resistance to levofloxacin was 60% in 2008 and 2009 and that it drastically reduced to 50% in 2010.
Because of the increasing resistance to fluroquinolone in many hospitals, its empirical usage is either banned or restricted, to bring the developing resistance rates under control(9).
Ceftazidime and cefepime are the most frequently prescribed third and fourth generation cephalosporins respectively. The resistanceto ceftazidime was reported as 4-18%, but in our study, it was 57% to 63.3 % and the resistance to cefepime was found to increase from 67% to 72%. These high values of resistance which were observed were comparable to those of the reports from Gujarat, with a resistance value of 75%10. The increased prevalence of ceftazidime resistant P.aeruginosa is related to the increased use of beta lactam antibiotics such as amoxicillin and ceftazidime. Selective pressure from the use of antimicrobial agents is a major determinant for the emergence of resistant strains.
The amino glycosides inhibit protein synthesis by binding to the 30 S subunit of the ribosome and the inactivation of the amino glycosides occurs through the production of enzymes which transfer acetyl, phosphate or adenylyl groups to the amino acid hydroxyl substituents on the antibiotics(11)(12). Over the 3 year period, the resistance to gentamicin was steady, while that of amikacin was highest during the year 2009(58.9), but was low as compared to the resistance to gentamicin.
In our study, the resistance rate to imipenem was 27% in 2009 and 16% in 2010 respectively. Various studies have shown the resistance to imipenem to be up to 31.6%12. Our report was in concordance with that of the above study.
A decline in the resistance to imipenem could be attributed to the restricted use of this antimicrobial agent.
The rate of the MDR-in P.aeruginosa (resistant to more than 2 classes of antibiotics) is increasing in many parts of the world and it poses a serious therapeutic dilemma3. In some institutes, the treatment of the MDR-in P.aeruginosa is being limited to polymixin B. We observed that the percentage of the MDR in the P.aeruginosa strains had increased from 64% in 2008 to 71% in 2010. Most of the isolates were from pus and endotracheal aspirates. The fact that most of the multiresistant strains were isolated from the ICUs is worrisome for the future. The development and the application of antimicrobial usage policies along with the aid of the Hospital Infection Control Committee will decrease the appearance and the spread of the nosocomial infection epidemics.
In this study, the inpatient isolates, particularly in the ICU patients, were more resistant to most of the antibiotics as compared to the outpatient isolates. We also observed that the highest rate of resistance was among the isolates from the ICU patients, followed by the isolates from the non –ICU patients and the least resistance was observed in the outpatient isolates. We also found no increase in the antibiotic resistance in the outpatient isolates over the 3 year period, except for the urinary isolates which showed an increase in the resistance rates. This observation correlates with the high exposure of the inpatient isolates to broad spectrum antibiotics and their overuse due to a prolonged stay in the hospital.
To conclude, although multidrug resistance has commonly been reported in nosocomial P.aeruginosa infections, community acquired data have less frequently been reported. For this reason, epidemiological studies on the prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of the resistant isolates in different geographical settings would provide useful information in order to guide clinicians in their choice of therapy and to contribute to the global picture of antimicrobial resistance.
Rigorous monitoring of the MDR in P.aeruginosa, the restriction of the inappropriate use of antimicrobial agents and adherence to infection control practices should be emphasized in order to delay the emergence of clinically significant P.aeruginosa.
- 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