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
A clinico- pathological study of adenomyosis
Correspondence Address :
Dr. JAYASREE. Manivasakan,
Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India. Pin-605107
Phone no: 9443769196
E-mail: drmjayasree1@yahoo.com
Introduction:
Adenomyosis is a myometrial lesion which is characterized by the presence of ectopic endometrium with or without hyperplasia of the surrounding myometrium. A majority of the cases are diagnosed following the histological examination of hysterectomy specimens, but the exact prevalence in the ‘normal’ population is unknown. More number of cases are being diagnosed, of late. It is being reported even in postmenopausal women. Objective: To correlate adenomyosis which was diagnosed in hysterectomy specimens with the clinical diagnosis and the patient profile.
Methodology:
This was a descriptive study which was carried out from January 2007 to December 2010. The case records of all the patients whose hysterectomy specimens showed adenomyosis were studied and analyzed with regards to the clinical profile.
Results:
Two hundred and fifty patients were studied. The prevalence of adenomyosis was 23.5%. Eighty percent of the patients were seen in the age group of 31-50 years. Ninety four point four percent of the patients were multiparous. The dominant symptom was menorrhagia (70.4%), followed by dysmenorrhoea (35.6%). Adenomyosis was clinically suspected in 21.2% of the cases.
Conclusion:
The occurrence of adenomyosis was seen in an age group with a wide range of 31-50 years in the present study, which was contrary to that which was observed in some studies, which showed the maximum occurrence after 40 years. The parity and the clinical symptoms correlated with those of other studies.
hysterectomy, adenomyosis, menorrhagia A clinico- pathological study of adenomyosis
Introduction
Adenomyosis is a myometrial lesion which is characterized by the presence of an ectopic endometrium with or without hyperplasia of the surrounding myometrium. A majority of the cases are diagnosed following the histological examination of hysterectomy specimens, but the exact prevalence in the ‘normal’ population is unknown. The percentage of hysterectomy specimens which contain adenomyosis varies from 5–70% (1). This wide variation may be partly explained by the histological criteria which is used and/or by the number of tissue blocks which are examined. The specificity of the pre-operative diagnosis which is based on the clinical picture is poor, ranging from 2.6–26% (2). A majority of the cases are reported in women who are aged 40–50 years and there is a positive association with the parity also. The patients with adenomyosis present with menorrhagia (40–50%), dysmenorrhoea (10–30%) and metrorrhagia (10–12%) and, occasionally, dyspareunia or dyschaesia (3), (4).
In the period from January 2007- December 2010, 1064 consecutive patients underwent hysterectomy at the Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital. Adenomyosis was diagnosed when the distance from the endo-myometrial junction to the foci of the adenomyosis was more than one low power field. Two hundred and fifty patients were diagnosed to be having adenomyosis. The medical records in which the histopathological report was adenomyosis were reviewed by the authors and information regarding age, parity, the chief complaints, and the clinical diagnosis obtained. The data was entered in simple tables and was analyzed.
Of the 250 patients, 46.8% were in the age group of 41-50 years, 39.2% were in the age group of 31-40 years and 10.8% were in the age group of 51-60 years. In the extremes of age, the prevalence decreased to 2.4% in the age group of 21-30 years and 0.8% were in the ages of above 60 years. Ninety four point four percent of the patients were multi-parous. A majority of them were of parities 2 and 3. In nulliparous and uniparous women, the prevalence was 2.8%. In women with a parity of ≥ 5 also, the prevalence was found to be decreased (4.4%). The dominant symptom was menorrhagia (70.4%), followed by dysmenorrhoea (35.6%). Only 5.6% of the patients had chronic pain in the abdomen. Adenomyosis was also diagnosed in patients who had complaints of a mass descending per vagina, post-menopausal bleeding and a mass in the abdomen. The pre-operative clinical diagnosis was dysfunctional uterine bleeding in 33.6% , fibroid uterus in 24.4%, adenomyosis in 21.2%, uterovaginal prolapse in 17.2%, post-menopausal bleeding in 2.8% and benign ovarian tumours in 0.8%.
Various aetiologies have been proposed for the development of adenomyosis, including genetic factors (5), increased intrauterine pressure as seen in the multipara, prior uterine surgery (6),(7), tamoxifen use (8) and hyperprolactinaemia. The true prevalence of adenomyosis is still unknown. The prevalence of adenomyosis in a study which was done by by Shaikh was 20.6 % (9) and it was 20.6% in a study which was done by Ali (10). Its incidence was shown to be 26 % in India by Sharqill et al (11), 24.9% in Italy by Vercellin (12) and 6% in West Indies by Raju et al (13). In our study, the prevalence was 23.5%. In a study by Anwar Ali, 73.7% of the patients were found to be between 41-50 years of age,16.3% were between 31-40 years of age, 1.6% were between 21-30 years of age and 8.1% were of >50 years of age (10). In Swan’s study, the mean age of the patients was 49.5± 3.4 (14). In a study which was done by Sabin, the percentage of the patients in the age group of 41-50 years was found to be 70% and those in the age group of 31-40 years was found to be 25.5%. Only 2% of the patients were diagnosed with adenomyosis between the ages of 21-30 years and 51-60 years (15). In a study which was done by Khresiat et al, 94% of the patients were found to be more than 40 years of age (16). These studies were found to vary from our study in that almost equal numbers of patients were diagnosed with adenomyosis in the age group of 31-40 years and 41-50 years. In Swan’s study, 58% of the patients were found to have complaints of abnormal vaginal bleeding and 10% had prolapse (14). In Khreisat’s study, 64.71% of the patients had dysmenorrhoea, 70.5% had menorrhagia, 3.92% had post-menopausal bleeding, 74.5% had dyspareunia, and 62.75% had chronic pelvic pain (16). But in our study, menorrhagia was the predominant symptom in 70% of the patients and it was dysmenorrhoea in 35% of the patients. In our study, adenomyosis was seen in 18.4% of patients with prolapse and in 2.8% of patients with post-menopausal bleeding. The menorrhagia may have been due to the dysfunctional contractility of the myometrium in patients with adenomyosis. In a study which was done by Khreisat, 96% of the patients with adenomyosis had a parity of more than 3 (16). The maximum occurrence was seen in patients with a mean parity of 3.8±2.3SD in a study (6) and it was 2.7 ±1.6 in another study (7). In our study, a majority of the patients were of parity 2 or 3. This correlated with the hypothesis that pregnancy may facilitate the formation of adenomyosis by allowing the adenomyotic foci to be included in the myometrium due to the invasive nature of the trophoblasts on the extension of the myometrial fibers. According to Reinhold, the specificity of the preoperative diagnosis based on the clinical picture was poor, ranging from 2.6–26% (2). In our study, the clinical diagnosis was fibroid in 24.4%, DUB in 33.6% and adenomyosis was suspected in 21.2% of the patients.
The prevalence of adenomyosis is found to be 23.5% in this study. Adenomyosis was diagnosed frequently in the age group of 40-50 years in other studies while in our study women in the age group of 31-40 years and 41-50 years were equally affected. The data which was obtained from international studies were in consistence with those of our study regarding the parity and the symptoms of adenomyosis. Adenomyosis was also seen in a considerable number of patients with a prolapsed uterus and postmenopausal bleeding. The preoperative diagnosis was possible in only one fifth of the cases. Adenomyosis should be suspected in all the cases of menorrhagia.
DOI: JCDR/3529:1963
DECLARATI ON ON COMPETING INTERESTS:
No competing Interests.
Date of Submission: Nov 02, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Feb 06, 2012
Date of Acceptance: Feb 16, 2012
Date of Publishing: May 01, 2012
- 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