AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionKey MessageAcknowledgementReferencesTable and FiguresDOI 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
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 Relationship Between The Intraocular Pressures Of Both The Eyes Before And After Water Ingestion
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Shailaja Patil
Assistant Professor, Department Of Physiology,
S. Nijalingappa Medical College, Navanagar, Bagalkot-587102
Karnataka, India.
Mobile: +919448973655
E-Mail: Drshailajapatil@Gmail.Com
Background: Oral water ingestion increases the blood volume, and hence the blood pressure, which in turn increases the intraocular pressure (IOP).
Aim: To know the effect of water ingestion on the IOP and the relationship between the IOPs of both the eyes, before and after water ingestion.
Settings and design: This comparative study was conducted on 36 male medical students in the department of Physiology.
Material and Methods: This study was conducted on 36 male medical students. The IOP was recorded every 30 minutes for 2 hours before and after water ingestion, with the subjects in the supine position, by using a Schiotz tonometer.
Statistical analysis: It was done by paired t test using SPSS 15.0 version.
Results: It was found that water ingestion increases the IOPs of both the eyes. The IOP of the left eye was insigficantly more by 0.2mmHg than that of the right eye in the control trial, but this was not so in the study trial. The transient increase in IOP was quick in the left eye than in the right eye after water ingestion.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that there is a difference between the IOPs of both the eyes, before and after water ingestion, whose cause cannot be clearly explained and therefore, this needs a further in depth study of the anatomical and physiological processes that govern the maintenance of the IOPs in both the eyes individually. This would also explain to a variable extent, the aetiology of some cases of unilateral glaucoma.
Intraocular pressure; water ingestion; normal eyes; glaucoma.
INTRODUCTION
Intraocular pressure is the pressure exerted by the aqueous humour, which is a clear optically transparent fluid filling the anterior and posterior chambers of the eye, on the coats of the anterior segment of the eyeball(1). The normal intraocular pressure (IOP) is 10-21 mmHg (mean, 16 ± 2.5 mmHg)(2). The precise mechanism of aqueous formation is yet to be elucidated. Despite vast scientific research and improvement in the analytical techniques, Leber’s theory of simple filtration was originally accepted for a long time. This simple theory could not account for the presence of certain substances in higher concentrations and the absence of a few others and this led to the elucidation of various other mechanisms (3) such as - • Ultrafiltration • The Secretion-Diffusion theory • Pinocytosis Some of the factors affecting the aqueous humour formation3 are- • Lumen changes in the blood vessels of the eye • Changes in the blood-aqueous barrier • Changes in the intraocular pressure due to changes in the blood composition The maintenance of the IOP is determined by the equilibrium between those forces which drive the fluid into the eye and those forces which oppose its escape (3). Various studies have been done to know the differences between the IOPs of the right and left eyes. But, the results are different. In the literature, the assessment of the differences between the IOPs of the right and left eyes before and after water ingestion, which is most commonly used as a provocative test in the diagnosis of glaucoma, is also not available. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to know the effect of water ingestion on the IOPs of both the eyes.
This was a comparative study showing the effect of water ingestion on the intraocular pressure (IOP) and the relationship between the IOPs of the right and left eyes in young, healthy, male adults in the age group of 17 to 20 years. The study was conducted on 36 first year MBBS students. Informed consent was obtained from each student. Ethical clearance was obtained from the institution. The same set of students were chosen for a control trial (before water ingestion) as well as for a study trial (after water ingestion), in order to avoid the confounding factors. Only apparently healthy male students with emmetropia were included in the study. Subjects with refractive errors and a history of ocular trauma or ocular surgery were excluded. Anthropometric parameters like height in centimeters and weight in kilograms were also recorded.During the control trial, the IOPs of both the eyes were recorded in the lying down position by the indentation method at every 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 mintues under aseptic precautions after the instillation of xylocaine eye drops, by using a Schiotz tonometer. Later on, during the study trial, the students were asked to consume water (2% of their body weights) over a period of 5 min. Again, the IOPs of both the eyes were recorded in the lying down position by the indentation method at every 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 mintues under aseptic precautions after the instillation of xylocaine eye drops, by using a Schiotz tonometer. The statistical analysis was done by using the SPSS software, version 15.0 under the guidance of a biostatistician. All the values were presented as mean ± standard deviation. The comparison of the mean values of the parameters between the two trials was done by using the paired t test. A p value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.
This was a comparative study showing the effect of water ingestion on the intraocular pressure (IOP) and the relationship between the IOPs of the right and left eyes in young, healthy, male adults in the age group of 17 to 20 years. All the values were presented as mean ± standard deviation. The mean age of the subjects was 18.36 + 0.833 (range 17 to 20 years), the mean height (cm) was 170.94 + 4.99 and the mean weight (kg) was 59.88 + 10.19. Intraocular pressure A) Control trial (Table/Fig 1) 1. The IOP of the right eye (in mmHg) decreased from the basal value (16.76 ± 3.15) at all the intervals. The decrease of 1 mm Hg between the 60 to 120 min intervals was statistically significant (P<0.05). 2. The IOP of the left eye insignificantly decreased by about 1 mmHg from the basal value (16.96 ± 2.44) at all the intervals. 3. When the IOPs of both the eyes were compared, the IOP of left eye as compared to the right eye, showed a significant increase of about 1 mmHg at the 60 minute interval (P<0.05). B) Study trial [Table/Fig 1] 1. The IOP of the right eye showed an insignificant increase at the 30 min interval which then gradually showed a decline up to the 120 min interval. The decrease at the 90 and 120 min intervals was significant as compared to the basal value (17.03 ± 2.11). 2. The IOP of the left eye showed an insignificant increase at the 30 min interval, which later gradually decreased up to the 120 min interval below the basal value. The decrease at the 90 and 120 min intervals was significant as compared to the basal value (16.96 ± 2.69) 3. When the IOP of both the eyes were compared, the IOP of the left eye showed a significant increase by 0.72 mmHg as compared to that of the right eye, at the 30 minute interval. C) Comparison of the study trial with the control trial (Table/Fig 2) 1. Right eye IOP: There was a significant increase by about 1mmHg in the study trial as compared to the control trial, at the 60 minute interval. 2. Left eye IOP: There was a significant increase by about 1mmHg in the study trial as compared to the control trial, at the 30 minute interval.
In our study, there was a transient increase in the IOP in both the eyes in the study trial (after water ingestion) at the 30 minute interval. Similar findings, in the form of a transient increase in the IOP after water ingestion, were observed by Moura et al (4) in their study on 6 healthy male subjects. A transient increase in aqueous production and slightly elevated IOP can be induced by the rapid ingestion of fluid (water-drinking test) in an eye with normal aqueous out flow(5). This was found to be true from our study. Comparison of the IOP between the Right and Left eyes: When the IOP between the right and left eyes were compared, in both the control and the study trials at different time intervals for two hours, it was found that in the control trial, the IOP of the left eye was insignificantly more than the IOP of the right eye at all intervals by about 0.2mm Hg. But this was not so in the study trial. In the study trial, the IOP showed a transiently significant increase by 1mm Hg in both the eyes. In the left eye, the significant increase was at the 30 minute interval and in the right eye, it was at the 60 minute interval. This transient increase may be attributed to an increased filtration of aqueous fluid in the ciliary body, owing to the increased perfusion pressure in the ciliary arteries. The transient, sudden increase in the left eye as compared to the right eye may be due to the anatomical variation in the origin of the left common carotid artery, which is a direct branch of the aorta(6). Booth F.M(7), in his study with non contact tonometers, found that the IOP of the left eye was more than the IOP of the right eye in subjects having higher IOP, but not in subjects having normal IOP. Kocak et al(8), in their study, found no variation between the IOPs of the right and left eyes. Vernon et al (9), in their study, found that the IOP of the right eye was more than that of the left eye.John et al (10), in their study in young (18-25 years) and older (40- 74) subjects who were housed for 24 hours in a sleep laboratory, found that the IOP of the right eye was more by about 0.3 to 0.9 mm Hg throughout the 24 hours and that this increase in the right eye was attributed to the recording of the IOP on the right side first and to a larger proportion of the experimental subjects with right hand and eye dominance. This was in contrast to our findings, where the IOP was more by about 0.2mm Hg in the left eye in the control trial, in spite of our recording on the right side first and in all the experimental subjects with right hand dominance. This may be due to the origin of the left common carotid artery which is a direct branch of the aorta (6). Thus, it can be concluded that there is a difference between the IOP of both the eyes, before and after water ingestion, whose cause cannot be clearly explained and therefore, this needs a further in depth study of the anatomical and physiological processes that govern the maintenance of the IOP in both the eyes individually. This would also explain to a variable extent, the aetiology of some cases of unilateral glaucoma.
There is a difference between the IOPs of both eyes, before and after water ingestion.
This would explain to a variable extent, the aetiology of some cases of unilateral glaucoma.
I thank Dr. Asha A. Dharwadkar and Dr. Anand R. Dharwadkar,
professors of Physiology, for their valuable guidance and support.
- 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