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
Case report
Full Version
Primary (Idiopathic) Non-Pancreatic Retroperitoneal Pseudocyst in a Young Female: A Rare Case Report
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Abhay M Philip,
Room No. 318, Don Bosco Hostel Father Muller Road Kankanady, Mangalore-575002, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: abhaymphilip@gmail.com
Retroperitoneal Cysts (RPC) are uncommon, with an estimated incidence of 1 in 5,750 to 1 in 250,000. A 26-year-old woman presented with dull aching, non-radiating pain in the upper abdomen for the past two months, with no aggravating or relieving factors. On clinical examination of the abdomen, a grossly visible mass measuring approximately 10x10 cm with a smooth surface, firm consistency, and well-defined borders was observed in the left lumbar and iliac region. Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography (CECT) of the abdomen and pelvis revealed a well-circumscribed cystic lesion measuring 9.3x9.5x5.5 cm in the left lumbar region near the tail of the pancreas. The pancreas appeared normal with no surrounding fat stranding or inflammatory changes. Peripheral enhancement and peripheral wall calcification were observed. The patient underwent laparotomy and cyst excision. Intraoperatively, the cyst was found to arise from the retroperitoneum located in the lesser sac. It was dissected out from the tail of the pancreas, and no obvious communication with the pancreas was observed. The cyst was excised completely. Histopathological examination revealed a cyst with absent endothelium, suggestive of a pseudocyst. Previous literature reports indicate that RPCs are very rare and are often discovered incidentally. Patients may be asymptomatic or present with vague symptoms. Imaging can help diagnose these lesions, but surgery is crucial in confirming the diagnosis.
Cyst excision, Laparotomy, Lumbar region, Retroperitoneum
A 26-year-old woman presented with dull, aching, non-radiating pain in the upper abdomen for the past two months, with no aggravating or relieving factors. There was no history of constipation, weight loss, or rectal bleeding. Her past medical history and family history were not relevant to the case. The patient had no previous episodes of pancreatitis or abdominal trauma, and there was no history of gallstones. During the clinical examination of the abdomen, a visible mass measuring approximately 10x10 cm with a smooth surface, firm consistency, and well-defined borders was observed in the left lumbar and iliac region. The mass was non-tender and did not move with respiration. A digital rectal examination showed no abnormalities.
Haematological investigations yielded normal results, and both amylase and lipase levels were within the normal range. A contrast-enhanced CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis revealed a well-circumscribed cystic lesion measuring 9.3x9.5x5.5 cm in the left lumbar region near the tail of the pancreas. The cyst showed peripheral enhancement and peripheral wall calcification, while the pancreas appeared normal without any surrounding fat stranding or inflammatory changes (Table/Fig 1). Tumour markers, Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA), and Alpha-Fetoprotein (AFP) were found to be normal.
The patient underwent laparotomy and cyst excision. Intraoperatively, it was determined that the cyst arose from the retroperitoneum within the lesser sac. The cyst, which did not demonstrate any obvious communication with the pancreas, was dissected out from the tail of the pancreas and completely removed. The defect in the lesser sac was closed. Since the cystic lesion was sent for pathological evaluation as an intact structure, the cyst fluid was not tested for amylase. Initially, a pancreatic pseudocyst was not considered as a differential diagnosis due to the absence of a relevant medical history and the lack of evidence of communication with the pancreas (confirmed by intraoperative findings as well as imaging) (Table/Fig 2). The histopathological examination revealed a cyst with absent endothelium, suggestive of a pseudocyst (Table/Fig 3). The patient had a smooth recovery without any clinical complications and was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. She resumed her daily activities and work within 10 days of surgery and reported no further complaints during follow-up.
Isolated retroperitoneal pseudocyst (RPC) tumours are uncommon, with an estimated prevalence of 1/5750 to 1/250,000 (1). These cysts typically originate from the pancreas. About one-third of RPC patients are asymptomatic, and the cysts are incidentally discovered. They can grow to a significant size before causing symptoms. The most common cause of RPC masses is pseudocysts associated with pancreatitis, which occur more frequently in cases of acute-on-chronic pancreatitis (2). RPC can also result from cysts that form in neighboring structures, such as mesenteric, omental, splenic, and enteric duplication cysts (2).
RPCs are cysts that do not connect to the surrounding structures and originate in the fatty areolar tissue of the retroperitoneum (3). Unlike pancreatic pseudocysts, they typically have a thick, fibrous wall without an epithelial lining. These cysts may contain haemorrhage, pus, or serous fluid, but their amylase and lipase levels are not elevated (4). The exact pathogenesis of this condition is unknown. Clinical features and symptoms often correspond to the location and size of the pseudocyst. Patients may present with abdominal pain, lower limb oedema, or referred pain to the legs. Infection or haemorrhage within the non-pancreatic RPC can cause acute exacerbation of abdominal pain (5). In a case report by Latif et al., a middle-aged male presented with constipation for five to six years and was on symptomatic treatment with laxatives (5). In contrast, the patient in the present case had a shorter duration of vague upper abdominal pain. Additionally, unlike the patient in the present case, the mass was not palpable in the former study. It is evident that RPC can present with a range of symptoms and clinical courses.
On imaging, RPCs appear as thick-walled unilocular or multilocular cystic masses. Abdominal CT scans and ultrasonography are both diagnostic for retroperitoneal pseudocysts. Long-standing cysts may become calcified, exhibiting a characteristic eggshell appearance (6). Histologically, the cyst wall consists of fibrous tissue without an epithelial lining. RPC includes a wide variety of cysts, such as mesenteric, omental, splenic, and intestinal duplication cysts (7). Neoplastic RPCs can be classified as epithelial (mucinous or serous cystadenoma), mesothelial (mesothelioma), germ cell-related (cystic teratoma), and cystic alterations in solid neoplasms (paraganglioma, neurilemmoma, sarcoma) (7). Other uncommon cysts that have been identified include Müllerian cysts, epidermoid cysts, tailgut cysts, bronchogenic cysts, and lymphangioma (accounting for 1% of all retroperitoneal neoplasms) (8). Non-neoplastic causes include hematoma, urinoma, lymphocele, pancreatic pseudocyst, and nonpancreatic pseudocyst (8).
Surgical excision is the primary method of treating pseudocysts (9). The cyst must be removed to prevent recurrence caused by residual cyst wall. In the current scenario, pseudocysts are typically removed laparoscopically. However, due to financial constraints, laparoscopic excision of the pseudocyst could not be performed. Techniques such as marsupialisation and partial excision are not recommended due to the high incidence of recurrence.
Idiopathic non-pancreatic pseudocyst is a rare surgical entity that can attain an enormous size and carries a wide range of differential diagnoses. Symptoms and signs are non-specific. Surgical excision is the only way to establish a definitive diagnosis. However, care should be taken to remove the cyst entirely to prevent recurrence.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/64591.18380
Date of Submission: Apr 09, 2023
Date of Peer Review: May 31, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Jul 19, 2023
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2023
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Apr 12, 2023
• Manual Googling: Jun 21, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Jul 13, 2023 (15%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- 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