[Experimental] List of manuscripts available for review volunteers
3 manuscripts available for review volunteers
November 20, 2017

Background. Different anticancer drugs are used in combination or alone to treat breast cancer depending upon the status of the patient. Oncologists need to know a drug’s efficacy; therefore, they compare different chemotherapies by considering side effects and overall survival so that suitable drugs can be prescribed. We present a comparison of adjuvant chemotherapies treating breast cancer with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC) showing pathological markers and overall survival.

Method. For 4 to 8 cycles, (after every 21 days) out of 358 patients, 189 received TC (140 ml/m2 of docetaxel (IV) plus 1000 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide) and 169 women were treated with AC (50/100 ml/m2 of doxorubicin (IV) plus 1000 mg/m2 of cyclophosphamide. On the basis of patients’ assessment by pathological markers, side effects of docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide are listed in our database using R programming language. The common factors and side effects given in MedlinePlus, NIH US database and from our database are separated to be included in comparison for this study. Statistically, we used Chi-Square Test for Homogeneity of Proportions at α = 0.05.

Results. There was no significant difference between proportions of patients with vomiting, extreme tiredness, diarrhoea, mild anaemia, stability and overall survival because p value > 0.05. However, p value < 0.05 for AC remains less toxic by 22.6%, 25.7% and 25.3% than TC in changes in taste, muscle pain and hands burning respectively, whereas TC remains less toxic by 52.9%, 26.3%, 11.3%, 32.5%, 15.5% and 1.75% in dizziness, sore throat, moderate anaemia, weight loss, blood transfusion and haemoglobin level respectively.

Discussion. TC is less toxic than AC in more aspects, whereas both combinations have same overall survival rate.

November 9, 2017
Anogenital warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV genotype 6 and 11 are most often associated with anogenital warts. The diversity of HPV genotypes found in Thai patients with genital warts is not well-characterized. The objective of this study was to investigate HPV-associated anogenital warts in the Thai population and whether genotypes found are represented in the vaccine. A total of 206 anogenital swab samples were analyzed for HPV DNA by PCR and sequencing. HPV positive was identified in 88.3% (182/206) of the samples. The majority of HPV (75.2%) were low-risk genotypes HPV6 and HPV11. Thus, HPV6 and HPV11 were most common infection in genital wart. We conclude that the quadrivalent vaccine could potentially prevent 84.5% of the genital warts found in the Thai population.
October 28, 2017
Background : Although, most of the research focus on the effect of birth methods on postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), there is, however, a lack of studies that examine whether the association between PPH and birth methods is different between nulliparous and multiparous women. We aims to compare the effects of birth methods on PPH between nulliparous and multiparous women. Methods: The data on 151,333 eligible women, who gave birth between January 2014 and May 2016, was obtained from the electronic health records in Shanxi province, China. The ordered logistic regression model was used to examine the association of birth methods and varying degrees of PPH between nulliparous and multiparous women. Results: In comparison with the odds for SVB, the odds of increased PPH for CS in multiparous women (aOR: 4.32; 95% CI: 3.03-6.14) was more than twice that in the nulliparous women (aOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.40-2.97). However, the PPH risk for episiotomy between multiparous (aOR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.96-1.62) and nulliparous women (aOR: 1.55; 95% CI: 0.92-2.60) were nearly the same. The PPH risk of forceps-assisted birth was much higher in multiparous women (aOR: 9.32; 95% CI: 3.66-23.71) than in nulliparous women (aOR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.91-3.18). Meanwhile, that for vacuum-assisted birth in multiparous women (aOR: 2.41; 95% CI: 0.36-16.29) was more than twice the PPH risk in the nulliparous women (aOR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.40-2.73). However, the difference was insignificant. Uterine inertia was more prone to cause PPH in the multiparous women (aOR: 5.54; 95% CI: 1.76-17.50) than in the nulliparous women (aOR: 3.03; 95% CI: 1.48-6.21). In contrast to uterine inertia, vertex malposition presented a decreased effect to the development of PPH in the multiparous (aOR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.25-3.00) and nulliparous women (aOR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.63-1.22). Conclusion: The associations between birth methods and PPH are different between nulliparous and multiparous women. Therefore, the choice of birth methods should be tailored for nulliparous and multiparous women at labor to lower the severity of postpartum hemorrhage.

FAQs

Is this open peer review?

No, peer review is still single-blind and all recommendations are private between the authors and Academic Editor. However, any reviewer has the option to sign their report, and once accepted for publication then that review can be shown publicly - again this is optional.

Will I be guaranteed to review if I volunteer?

No. Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. This is for many reasons. For one, reviewers must have relevant qualifications for any manuscript and void of any conflicts of interest. Additionally, it could be that enough reviewers have accepted an invitation to review already, in which case we would not invite any more.

Why aren't there more manuscripts available?

Manuscripts are shown when authors have opted-in for obtaining reviewers through the reviewer-match service. Additionally, there may already be enough reviewers found through other means, for example, invitations sent by the Academic Editor in charge.

What are the editorial criteria?

Please visit the editorial criteria page for initial guidance. You will also be given additional information if invited to review.