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 Effect of Smoking on the Blood Parameters of Young Adults
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Jayballabh Kumar, Assistant Professor,
Department of Physiology, TMMC & RC, TMU,
Delhi Road , Bagarpur, Moradabad, 244001, UP, India.
Phone: 09917653488
E-mail: dr.jbkumar@gmail.com
Aims and Objectives:
To compare the haemoglobin concentration, the Differential Laeukocyte Count (DLC) and the Packed Cell Volume (PCV) in the blood of smokers and non-smokers.
Methodology:
150 young adults who were of the age group of 20-30 years were selected for this study. Out of the 150, 75 were smokers and 75 were non-smokers. The subjects who suffered from any diseases were excluded. The methods which were used for this study were- Sahli’s method for the estimation of haemoglobin, the Tally Chart Method for the determination of the differential laeukocyte count and Wintrobe’s method for the determination of the PCV.
Observations:
In the present study, the means of the neutrophil counts in the passive smokers, occasional smokers and the active smokers (<10 cig. /day) were higher than those in the non-smokers, whereas it was lesser in the active smokers (>10 cig./day). The eosinophil counts in the passive smokers, occasional smokers and the active smokers (>10 cig. /day) were slightly higher than those in the non-smokers, whereas it was lesser in the active smokers (<10 cig./day). But the difference was not significant. The packed cell volume of the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) was significantly higher than that of the non-smokers (p=0.0033). In the active smokers (< 10 cig./day), the packed cell volume was quite significant than that in the non-smokers (p=0.078).
Conclusion:
Our study showed that that smoking had an effect on the blood parameters. A majority of the parameters showed higher values in the smokers than in the non-smokers. These mainly included haemoglobin, packed cell volume (PCV) and the differential leukocyte count (DLC).
Smokers, Haemoglobin, Packed Cell Volume (PCV) and Differential Laeukocyte Count (DLC)
INTRODUCTION
Smoking is one of the most preventable causes of death in our society. The chemicals in cigarettes and tobacco make the smoke which is emitted from smoking them, harmful. It had been found in previous studies that the mean haemoglobin (Hb) concentration in men and women was higher in the smokers than in the non-smokers (1). The mean haemoglobin levels and the carboxyhaemoglobin levels increase progressively with the number of cigarettes which are consumed per day. Cigarette smoking seems to cause a generalized upward shift of the haemoglobin distribution curve, which reduces the utility of the haemoglobin level to detect anaemia. The neutrophils increased in number disproportionately with the current number of cigarettes which were smoked per day. The increased cigarette smoking decreased the proportions of the white blood cells that were lymphocytes or eosinophils. The other smoking variables had no influence on the per cent counts for the specific white cell types in the peripheral blood. These data suggested that the effect of cigarette smoking on the differential cell counts was not uniform and that it was primarily influenced by the current smoking behaviour, although long-lasting effects of the past smoking are also evident (2). It had been found in the earlier studies that the smokers had shown significantly high values of the total laeukocyte count (P<0.001) as compared to those in the non-smokers (3). Among the smokers, the total laeukocyte count was found to be positively associated with the intensity of the smoking, the pack per year and the duration of the smoking (P<0.001). The women smokers had significantly higher Hb values than the non-smokers, while among men, the smokers had a little higher Hb values than the non-smokers. No significant difference was found between the ex-smokers and the never smokers (4). The laeukocyte chemotaxis was found to be depressed in the smoking subjects as compared to that in the same subjects who abstained from cigarettes or to that in the non-smokers (5). Therefore, we conducted this study in the Teerthanker Mahaveer Medical College and Research Centre, in order to investigate the effect of smoking on the blood parameters and to highlight our findings among the medical students as well as the other staff members for the purpose of awareness. Therefore, this study was different from the other studies which were done on the same context, in a medical college.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the haemoglobin concentration, the differential laeukocyte count and the packed cell volume in the blood of smokers and non-smokers. In this study, we investigated the effect of smoking by citing the blood parameters in the smokers in comparison to those in the non-smokers.
Subjects
150 young adults from the 20-30 years age group were selected for this study. Out of the 150, 75 were smokers and 75 were non-smokers. The subjects who suffered from any diseases were excluded.An informed consent was taken from the participants before the study was started and the study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (IEC).
The subjects were divided into two major groups-
1. Smokers,
2. Non-smokers
The smokers were further divided into the following sub groups-
1. Occasional Smokers
2. Active Smokers <10 cig. /day
3. Active Smokers >10 cig. /day
The non-smokers were further divided into the following sub groups:
1. Non-Smokers
2. Passive Smokers
Sample
The sample was intravenous blood which was withdrawn from the medial cubital vein. The sample (blood) was taken in a blood container and EDTA (ethylene di amine tetra acetate, an anticoagulant) was added to it to prevent it from clotting.
The following methods were used for this study-
1. Sahli’s method for the estimation of haemoglobin.
2. The Tally Chart Method for the determination of the differential laeukocyte count.
3. Wintrobe’s method for the determination of the PCV.
Statistical Analysis
The results were analyzed by the Student’s unpaired t test to compare each smoking group with the non-smoking group. The statistical softwares, namely SPSS, version 10.0 and Systat, version 8.0 were used for the analysis of the data. Microsoft Word and Excel were used to generate the graphs, tables, etc. The p values which were below 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. The values of all the parameters were presented as geometric means.The mean of the neutrophil count was 58.87. It was lesser than the count in the passive smokers (p=0.1846), but it was not statistically significant. The count in the occasional smokers was also not significant, but it was slightly higher than that in the non-smokers (p= 0.2071). In the active smokers (< 10 cig. /day), the neutrophil count was significantly higher than that in the non-smokers (p=0.0417), but the count in the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) was lesser than that in the non-smokers. It was not statistically significant (Table/Fig 1). The eosinophil count in the non-smokers was 1occasional smokers (p=1.87). It was not statistically significant. The eosinophil count in the active smokers (< 10 cig./day) was lower than that in the non-smokers (p=0.3128) and it was slightly higher in the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) (p=0.43). It was not statistically significant (Table/Fig 1). The mean of the basophil count in the non-smokers (mean=0.2) was equal to those in the passive smokers and in the active smokers (< 10 cig./day). There was no difference in the counts of the basophils in these three groups (P=1.0). In the occasional smokers, the basophil count was lower than that in the non-smokers. In the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) also, it was lower than that in the non-smokers. This difference was statistically not significant (Table/Fig 1)..80, which was lesser than those in the passive smokers (p=0.3739) and in the The mean lymphocyte count in the non-smokers was 37.13, which was higher than that in the passive smokers (p= 0.1416). The basophil count was lower in the occasional smokers (p= 0.2080) and in the active smokers < 10 cig./day (p=0.07). This was not statistically significant. In the active smokers, the count was 37.33, which was approximately equal to that in the non-smokers (p=0.9275). By using the conventional criteria, this difference was found to be statistically insignificant (Table/Fig 2). The mean of the % of the monocyte count in the non-smokers was 2.0 and it was slightly lower than that in the passive smokers (p=0.6160), the occasional smokers (p-0.6397) and the active smokers (< 10 cig./day) (p=0.7974), but this difference was not statistically significant. The monocyte count in the non-smokers was slightly higher than that in the active smokers (> 10 cig. /day) (p=0.88) and it was not statistically significant (Table/Fig 2).The packed cell volumes of the passive smokers and the occasional smokers were not significantly different from that in the non-smokers. The packed cell volume of the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) was statistically very significantly higher than that of the non-smokers (p=0.0033). In the active smokers (< 10 cig. /day), the packed cell volume was quite significant than that in the non-smokers (p=0.078) (Table/Fig 3). The mean of the haemoglobin concentration in the non-smokers was 13.50 g/dl and that in the passive smokers was 13.947 g/dl (p=0.0493). This difference was statistically significant. The haemoglobin concentration in the occasional smokers was 14.32 g/dl, which was more than the mean in the non-smokers (p=0.0168). The value of Hb was significantly higher in the occasional smokers. When the Hb level of the non-smokers was compared with that of the the active smokers (< 10 cig./day) (mean=14.34 g/dl), it showed that the Hb level was significantly higher in the active smokers (< 10 cig./day) than in the non-smokers. In the active smokers (> 10 cig. /day), the mean of the Hb was 14.66 g/dl. This difference was statistically extremely significant (p=0.002) (Table/Fig 3).
In the present study, we investigated the changes in the packed cell volume, the haemoglobin concentration, and the differential laeukocyte count in non-smokers and smokers, who were aged 20 -30 years. In the differential laeukocyte count, all the 5 types of laeukocytes of the non-smokers and the smokers were compared. The non-smokers were divided into two groups- the rarely in contact with the smokers (NS) and the passive smokers (PS). The smokers were divided into three groups- the occasional smokers, active smokers (<10 cig./day) (AS <10) and the active smokers (>10 cig./day). The means of the different parameters of the non-smokers were compared with the means of the passive smokers, the occasional smokers, the active smokers (<10 cig./day) and the active smokers (>10 cig/day). In the present study, the means of the neutrophil counts in the passive smokers, occasional smokers and the active smokers (<10 cig./day) were higher than that in the non-smokers, whereas it was lesser in the active smokers (>10 cig./day). The eosinophil counts in the passive smokers, occasional smokers and the active smokers (>10 cig./day) were slightly higher than that in the non-smokers, whereas it was lesser in the active smokers (<10 cig./day). But the difference was not significant. The differences in the basophil, monocyte, and the lymphocyte counts were also not uniform. Muhammad Jamal Haider and Abdul Rauf (2010) examined the association between the smoking habits and the total laeukocyte count in a group of clinically healthy smokers. As compared to the non-smokers, the current smokers showed significantly high values of the total laeukocyte count (P<0.001) (3). Schwartz J et al., observed in his study, that the neutrophil count had disproportionately increased due to smoking. The increased cigarette smoking had decreased the proportions of the white blood cells that were lymphocytes or eosinophils. The other smoking variables had no influence on the percent counts for the specific white cell types in the peripheral blood. These data suggested that the effect of cigarette smoking on the differential cell counts was not uniform (6). In our study, the packed cell volume of the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) was significantly higher than that in the non-smokers (p=0.0033). In the active smokers (< 10 cig./day), the packed cell volume was quite significant than that in the non-smokers (p=0.078). The packed cell volumes of the passive smokers and the occasional smokers were not significantly different from that of the non-smokers. Milton E. Eisen et al., observed that the mean of the packed cell volume in the non-smokers was 52.1 and that in the in smokers, it was 46.3. The packed cell volume was significantly higher in the smokers than in the non-smokers, which is similar to the findings of our study (7). In this study, the mean of the haemoglobin concentration was 13.50 g/dl in the non-smokers and it was 14.66 g/dl in the active smokers (> 10 cig./day). Nordenberg D, Yip R and Binkin NJ. (1990) examined the relationships between cigarette smoking, the haemoglobin concentration, and the carboxy haemoglobin concentration by using the data from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Among the women, the smokers had a mean (± SE) haemoglobin level of 137 ± 0.4 g/L, which was significantly higher than the mean haemoglobin level of 133 ± 0.5 g/L in the never-smokers. Among the men, the mean haemoglobin levels for the smokers and the never-smokers were 156 ± 0.4 and 152 ± 0.5 g/L, respectively (1). The mean of the haemoglobin concentration which was observed by Suleiman Muneizel was 15.13 g/dl in the smokers and it was 14.98 g/dl in the non-smokers. The difference was statistically significant. Milton E. Eisen et al. reported that it was found to be 15.0 g/dl in the non-smokers and 17.2 g/dl in the smokers. The haemoglobin concentration was significantly higher in the smokers then in the non-smokers. The results of the present study were not much different from those of previous studies. (4),(7),(8)
Our study showed that smoking had an effect on the blood parameters. A majority of the parameters showed higher values in the smokers than in the non-smokers. These mainly included haemoglobin, packed cell volume and the DLC. The findings suggested a marked influence of smoking on the haemoglobin concentration, where the concentrations were higher in the active smokers than in the non-smokers. The packed cell volume was greater in the active smokers (> 10 cig./day) than in the non-smokers. The packed cell volume was slightly higher in the active smokers (< 10 cig./day). Not much difference was found in the passive and the occasional smokers as compared to the non-smokers. These data suggested that the effect of cigarette smoking on the differential cell counts was not uniform. The effect of cigarette smoking on the differential laeukocyte counts has been unexplored. Our study has enhanced the awareness on the ill effects of smoking among the medical students, as well as among faculty staff members.
ID: JCDR/2012/4805:2445
Date of Submission: Jul 06, 2012
Date of Peer Review: Jul 28, 2012
Date of Acceptance: Aug 16, 2012
Date of Publishing: Sep 30, 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