cover
Contact Name
Indra Hadi
Contact Email
profesionaljournalmedicine@gmail.com
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
pt.internationalmedicaljournal@gmail.com
Editorial Address
Equity Tower. 49th Floor. Sudirman Street. Special Region of Jakarta, Indonesia
Location
Kota adm. jakarta selatan,
Dki jakarta
INDONESIA
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
ISSN : 30481376     EISSN : 30481368     DOI : -
Core Subject : Health,
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research, published by International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd. is dedicated to providing physicians with the best research and important information in the world of medical research and science and to present the information in a format that is understandable and clinically useful. Committed to publishing multidisciplinary research that spans the entire spectrum of healthcare and medicine access, The American Journal of Medical Science and Health Research aims at an international audience of pharmacists, clinicians, medical ethicists, regulators, and researchers, providing an online forum for the rapid dissemination of recent research and perspectives in this area.
Articles 529 Documents
A Clinicopathological Overview of Microalbumin and Creatinine Levels as Early Indicators of Renal Injury in Prolanis Participants with Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at UPT Puskesmas Pinangsori, Central Tapanuli Regency, North Sumatra, Indonesia Jebo Martarini Hariandja; Johannes Martupa Lumbantoruan; Kaspari Arnando
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/tenvbz75

Abstract

Background: The insidious progression of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) secondary to Hypertension (HT) and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) necessitates early detection through sensitive laboratory markers. Microalbuminuria signifies a breach in the glomerular filtration barrier, while a decline in the estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), derived from serum creatinine, indicates a loss of functional renal mass. This study provides a detailed clinicopathological analysis of these markers in a high-risk primary care cohort in Indonesia. Methods: This descriptive, cross-sectional study analyzed secondary laboratory data from 75 participants in the Chronic Disease Management Program (Prolanis) at UPT Puskesmas Pinangsori. All participants had a diagnosis of HT, T2DM, or both. The core laboratory variables were spot urine microalbumin and serum creatinine. Data were statistically analyzed to describe the prevalence of abnormal findings. eGFR was calculated using the 2021 CKD-EPI creatinine equation. From a laboratory perspective, albuminuria was stratified into normoalbuminuria (<30 mg/L), microalbuminuria (30-300 mg/L), and macroalbuminuria (>300 mg/L). Renal function was staged according to KDIGO guidelines based on eGFR. Results: The cohort of 75 participants was predominantly female (81.3%) with a mean age of 60.5 years (SD ± 9.8). The primary diagnosis was hypertension alone (61.3%). Pathological albuminuria was highly prevalent: 29.3% of participants exhibited microalbuminuria, and 2.7% presented with macroalbuminuria. This indicates that 32% of this high-risk group had evidence of compromised glomerular barrier integrity. The mean serum creatinine was 0.92 mg/dL (SD ± 0.29), with a corresponding mean eGFR of 79.9 mL/min/1.73m² (SD ± 20.4). This average eGFR falls into the KDIGO G2 category (mildly decreased). Notably, 21.3% of participants were classified as Stage G2 and 9.3% as Stage G3a, signifying that over 30% had a quantifiable reduction in filtration function. The combined HT and T2DM group showed the highest burden of pathology, with 45% exhibiting microalbuminuria and the lowest mean eGFR (72.0 mL/min/1.73m²). Conclusion: The laboratory data reveal a significant, yet likely subclinical, burden of early-stage kidney disease in this Prolanis cohort. The high prevalence of microalbuminuria, preceding a severe decline in eGFR, serves as a critical pathophysiological warning. These findings underscore the indispensable role of routine, quantitative laboratory screening in primary care to identify incipient nephropathy and guide aggressive therapeutic interventions to preserve renal function and prevent progression to end-stage renal disease. Keywords : Microalbuminuria, Diabetic Kidney Disease, Hypertension, Early Detection, eGFR, Prolanis.
What is the impact of Smoking on female fertility ? A Systematic Review Sharly Ayu Puspita; Dini Gustiarini
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/98yxwt81

Abstract

Introduction: Smoking is a significant public health concern with well-documented adverse effects on reproductive health. The toxins in cigarette smoke disrupt hormonal balances and physiological processes essential for conception and pregnancy. This systematic review aims to comprehensively assess the impact of tobacco use on female fertility, covering both natural conception and outcomes of assisted reproductive technologies (ART). Methods: This study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Springer, and Google Scholar using keywords related to female fertility, smoking, and reproductive outcomes. After screening 2,346 records and assessing 949 reports for eligibility, 22 studies were included in the final analysis. Results: The evidence shows that smoking significantly impairs natural fertility by increasing the time to pregnancy and raising the risk of an infertility diagnosis (OR 1.85) and ectopic pregnancy (OR 2.02). In ART, smokers experience significantly lower live birth rates (OR 0.52), reduced clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.59), fewer retrieved oocytes, and a substantially higher miscarriage rate (OR 2.48) compared to non-smokers. Mechanistically, smoking is consistently associated with reduced Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) levels, indicating diminished ovarian reserve. A clear dose-response relationship was identified, with heavier smoking linked to more severe outcomes. Discussion: The findings confirm that tobacco use is a potent reproductive toxin that compromises nearly every stage of the reproductive process, from oocyte quality to embryo implantation and development. The damage is not easily bypassed, even with advanced medical interventions. While the harm is evident, data on the reversibility of these effects after smoking cessation remains inconclusive, highlighting a critical knowledge gap. Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming: smoking has a profoundly negative and multifaceted impact on female fertility. It is a significant barrier to achieving a successful pregnancy, regardless of the conception method. Therefore, smoking cessation counseling must be a primary and non-negotiable component of preconception and fertility care to preserve reproductive potential and improve pregnancy outcomes.
How do different treatment modalities impact long-term remission rates and fertility preservation in patients with gestational trophoblastic diseases? : A Systematic Review Sharly Ayu Puspita; Dini Gustiarini
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/nhahbb10

Abstract

Introduction: The management of Gestational Trophoblastic Disease (GTD) aims to achieve high long-term remission rates while preserving future fertility. Treatment protocols are stratified by risk to optimize outcomes and minimize toxicity. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on how different treatment modalities impact remission and fertility in GTD patients. Methods: This systematic review adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Databases including PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Springer, and Google Scholar were searched using PICO-based keywords to identify relevant studies. After screening, 25 studies—including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and systematic reviews—were selected for data extraction and analysis on treatment protocols, remission rates, and fertility outcomes. Results: For low-risk Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia (GTN), single-agent chemotherapy (methotrexate or actinomycin D) achieves remission rates of 75-100%. For high-risk GTN, multi-agent regimens like EMA/CO result in remission rates between 71% and 97.7%. Immunotherapy with avelumab has shown approximately a 53% remission rate in chemo-resistant cases. Fertility preservation is a significant success, with subsequent pregnancy rates of 86.7-100% and live birth rates of 75.8-90% reported after chemotherapy. Surgical interventions such as routine second uterine curettage or hysterectomy did not demonstrate improved remission rates over chemotherapy alone. Discussion: The evidence strongly supports a risk-stratified treatment model that balances efficacy with toxicity. The choice between single agents like methotrexate and actinomycin D depends on their differing toxicity profiles. The emergence of immunotherapy has provided a crucial and effective option for patients with chemo-resistant disease, transforming the prognosis for this group. Conclusion: The treatment of GTD is highly effective, yielding excellent remission rates while safeguarding patient fertility. The standard of care relies on risk-stratified chemotherapy, with effective, evidence-based salvage therapies like immunotherapy available for resistant disease. These modern strategies ensure high cure rates and preserve quality of life, including future reproductive potential.
Association of Diabetes Mellitus and Vulvovaginal Candidiasis : A Systematic Review Karina Maharati Wibowo; Elsi Septira Wibowo
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/ytryk339

Abstract

Introduction: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a global pandemic that significantly increases susceptibility to infections, including Vulvovaginal Candidiasis (VVC). This increased risk is attributed to hyperglycemia and compromised immune function. VVC in diabetic women often presents with greater severity, recurrence, and treatment challenges. This systematic review synthesizes the current evidence on the association between DM and VVC. Methods: This review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Springer, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Eligibility criteria focused on observational studies and reviews examining VVC in adult females with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. After screening, 27 articles were included for analysis. Results: The evidence confirms a significantly higher prevalence of VVC in diabetic women (32-67.5%) compared to non-diabetic women (11-23%). The risk is elevated in both Type 1 DM (84% prevalence) and Type 2 DM (68% prevalence) versus controls (27%). Poor glycemic control is a critical factor, with VVC prevalence doubling in uncontrolled (31.4%) versus controlled (15.7%) diabetes. VVC in diabetics is associated with higher recurrence and increased infections by non-albicans Candida species, which are often resistant to standard azole antifungals. Conclusion: The association between DM and VVC is robust and deeply rooted in the pathophysiological effects of hyperglycemia and immune dysfunction. The cornerstone of prevention and management is rigorous glycemic control. The clinical approach must be integrated, addressing both the infection with appropriate, sometimes alternative, antifungal therapies and the underlying metabolic disorder to reduce the burden of this common and challenging comorbidity.
How do different surgical techniques for haemorrhoidectomy (e.g., stapled vs. excisional) compare in terms of postoperative complications and patient recovery? : A Systematic Review Septian Tri Anggara; Andy Michael; Tia Rahmi Priyanto
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/yt2cxx50

Abstract

Introduction: Conventional excisional hemorrhoidectomy, while effective for high-grade hemorrhoids, is frequently associated with significant postoperative pain and a prolonged recovery period. Newer modalities, such as stapled hemorrhoidopexy and energy-based devices, have been developed to minimize trauma and improve patient outcomes. This systematic review provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of these surgical techniques, focusing on postoperative complications and patient recovery metrics. Methods: Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Springer, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two surgical techniques for hemorrhoidectomy in adult patients and reported on outcomes such as pain, recovery  time, or complications. A total of 11 RCTs met the eligibility criteria for the final analysis. Results: The analysis revealed that modern techniques—specifically energy-based devices (e.g., Ligasure, harmonic scalpel) and stapled hemorrhoidopexy—consistently resulted in significantly lower postoperative pain scores compared to traditional excisional methods. These benefits were accompanied by reduced needs for analgesia, shorter hospital stays, and a faster return to normal activities. Furthermore, energy devices were associated with shorter operative times and a significantly lower incidence of specific complications, such as postoperative bleeding. Conclusion: Modern surgical techniques offer a substantially improved postoperative experience for patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. The reduction in pain, faster recovery, and lower rates of specific complications support the adoption of energy-based and stapled techniques as a new standard of care. While overall safety profiles are comparable to traditional methods, these advanced procedures provide clear, clinically meaningful benefits. Further research with long-term follow-up is recommended to assess recurrence rates and cost-effectiveness.
How do minimally invasive versus open surgical approaches compare in terms of patient recovery for bladder stone management? : A Systematic Review Teuku Muhammad Ramzi Akbar; Munawwir
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/8kxp5p73

Abstract

Introduction : This systematic review investigates patient recovery outcomes between minimally invasive and open surgical approaches for bladder stone management. Bladder stones are a significant urological problem, often linked to bladder outlet obstruction and chronic urinary tract infections. While open cystolithotomy was historically the standard , minimally invasive techniques like percutaneous cystolithotripsy (PCCL), transurethral cystolitholapaxy (TUCL), and laparoscopic methods have emerged, aiming to improve patient outcomes and reduce morbidity. The choice of surgical method is complex, influenced by stone size, number, and patient-specific factors. This review aims to provide an evidence-based comparison to guide clinical practice. Methods : Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines , a systematic search was conducted across databases including PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Springer, Google Scholar, and Cochrane. Studies focusing on adult patients with bladder stones, comparing minimally invasive and open surgical approaches, and reporting recovery outcomes such as hospital stay, operative time, and complications were included. Data extraction was performed by a large language model , and a total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results : The results consistently show that minimally invasive approaches offer superior recovery outcomes. Operative times were significantly shorter for MIS, with PCCL being markedly faster than open vesicolithotomy (e.g., 38.20 minutes vs. 71.16 minutes). Hospital stays were also considerably reduced for MIS patients, often by one or more days. Postoperative catheterization time was notably diminished in MIS, for instance, 2.5 days for mini-PCCL versus 8.6 days for open surgery. While both approaches achieved high stone-free rates , complication rates were generally lower in MIS groups. However, specific MIS techniques carried distinct risks, such as higher urethral stricture rates with TUCL. Patient-reported outcomes like quality of life were infrequently assessed but indicated better outcomes with MIS. Conclusion : The aggregated evidence strongly supports minimally invasive surgery as the preferred approach for bladder stone management due to shorter operative times, reduced hospital stays, and lower morbidity. The optimal technique depends on stone characteristics and patient factors. Despite robust findings, further research is needed, particularly high-quality, multi-center randomized controlled trials focusing on standardized patient-reported outcomes and long-term complications. This will further refine clinical guidelines and enhance informed patient consent.
Ciprofloxacin-Associated Stevens-Johnson Syndrome in A Healthy Young Woman: A Case Report Grady; Dewa Ayu Putu Mitha Paramitha Rahayu; Ida Ayu Uttari Priyadarshini
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/j9b9r465

Abstract

Background: Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) are rare but life-threatening mucocutaneous reactions, primarily triggered by medications. These conditions are characterized by extensive epidermal necrosis, mucosal involvement, and systemic complications. Ciprofloxacin, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, is an uncommon but recognized cause of SJS. Early recognition and multidisciplinary management are crucial in reducing morbidity and mortality. Case Presentation: We report a case of a previously healthy 23-year-old woman who developed SJS following ciprofloxacin use. The patient presented with widespread erythematous patches, blistering lesions, mucosal erosions, ocular involvement, and urogenital ulcerations. The SCORTEN score was calculated to be 2, indicating an estimated mortality risk of 12.1%. Management included immediate discontinuation of the suspected causative drug, systemic corticosteroids, wound care, fluid and electrolyte balance maintenance, and supportive ophthalmologic and urologic treatments. The patient demonstrated clinical improvement and was discharged after a 11-day hospital stay. Conclusion: This case highlights the potential for ciprofloxacin to induce SJS, emphasizing the need for vigilance in drug-induced cutaneous reactions, even in younger patients. Prompt diagnosis, drug withdrawal, and comprehensive supportive care play pivotal roles in patient outcomes. Given the unpredictability of long-term sequelae, continued monitoring is essential.
What is the comparative effectiveness of standard supportive care versus fluid replacement therapy in reducing mortality for children with dengue hemorrhagic fever? : A Systematic Review Andrian Dwi Rizki Setyawan; Edy sucipto
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/z2jr5v69

Abstract

Introduction: Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever (DHF) is a severe complication of dengue infection in children, where fluid management is a critical but controversial component of care. The optimal strategy for fluid replacement remains debated, with risks associated with both under- and over-resuscitation. This systematic review aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various fluid replacement therapies versus standard supportive care in reducing mortality for children with DHF. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Springer, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, and Wiley Online Library. Inclusion criteria focused on studies of pediatric patients (≤18 years) with confirmed DHF, comparing fluid replacement therapies with standard care, and reporting mortality as an outcome. After screening, 11 studies, including randomized controlled trials and observational studies, were included in the narrative synthesis. Results: The findings were highly conflicting and context-dependent. In resource-limited African settings, studies found that aggressive fluid boluses were associated with significantly higher mortality compared to maintenance-only fluid strategies. Conversely, studies in intensive care units (ICUs) demonstrated that restrictive fluid strategies or targeted interventions (e.g., early albumin, advanced monitoring) significantly reduced mortality compared to liberal or standard therapy. Furthermore, improved physician adherence to WHO guidelines also led to decreased mortality. Discussion: The evidence indicates there is no single superior fluid management strategy for all children with DHF. The optimal approach is critically dependent on the clinical setting and available resources. The stark contrast between the harm caused by bolus fluids in low-resource settings and the benefits of advanced, targeted care in high-resource ICUs suggests that global, one-size-fits-all guidelines may be inappropriate. Conclusion: Studies promoting minimal intervention or restrictive maintenance fluid protocols demonstrated either comparable or superior outcomes, with fewer complications and a reduced burden on the healthcare system. Conversely, in well-equipped intensive care units, highly structured and targeted interventions, which may include early colloid administration and vigilant monitoring for complications like abdominal compartment syndrome, have been shown to drastically reduce mortality.
What are the differences in patient-reported functional outcomes and recovery time between arthroscopic and open surgical repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears in adults ? : A Systematic Review Virta Andhika; Mohammad Erstda Trapsilantya
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/yxq8j787

Abstract

Introduction: Full-thickness rotator cuff tears are a major cause of shoulder pain and disability, commonly treated with either open or arthroscopic surgical repair. The optimal surgical approach remains debated, with extensive research comparing the two techniques. This systematic review aims to consolidate current evidence on the differences in patient-reported functional outcomes, recovery time, and complication rates between arthroscopic and open repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears in adults. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Springer, Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar, and Wiley Online Library for comparative studies published since 2015. The search used keywords based on the PICO framework, including "Rotator Cuff Tears," "Arthroscopic Repair," and "Open Surgical Repair." We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing arthroscopic and open techniques in adults with full-thickness tears that reported on functional outcomes. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: The analysis of 25 studies, including 11 randomized controlled trials and six systematic reviews, consistently showed no significant long-term difference in functional outcomes between arthroscopic and open repair. Both methods resulted in comparable improvements as measured by scales like the Constant-Murley and ASES scores. Some evidence suggested that arthroscopic repair provides less pain and better function in the immediate postoperative period (e.g., within 72 hours to one month), but this advantage was not sustained. Re-tear and complication rates were also found to be similar between the two groups in most studies. Conclusion: Based on the synthesized evidence, both arthroscopic and open repair techniques are equally effective for treating full-thickness rotator cuff tears, yielding similar long-term functional outcomes. While arthroscopic surgery may offer a transient early recovery benefit, this does not translate into long-term superiority. The choice of surgical technique should be guided by surgeon expertise, patient preference, and resource considerations rather than an expectation of different clinical outcomes.
What are The Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic versus Open Surgical Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Injuries : A Systematic Review Shina Niko Apredo; Jatniko Fadhilah
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/avh4tm05

Abstract

Introduction Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) rupture is a common knee injury that often requires surgical intervention to restore stability and function. The primary surgical options are traditional open reconstruction and modern minimally invasive arthroscopic techniques. Despite extensive research, there is no definitive consensus on the superiority of one method over the other, prompting this systematic review to synthesize current evidence on their comparative clinical outcomes. Methods This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. A comprehensive search of databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Springer, Semantic Scholar, and Wiley Online Library was performed using PICO-based keywords to identify relevant studies. The review included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies that compared clinical outcomes of primary open versus arthroscopic ACL reconstruction in adult patients. Data on knee stability, functional scores, and complication rates were extracted and synthesized. Results Twenty studies were included in the final analysis. The synthesis of evidence revealed no consistent, statistically significant long-term differences between open and arthroscopic ACL reconstruction in primary outcomes, including knee stability (Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000) and patient-reported functional scores (Lysholm, IKDC). However, high rates of radiographic osteoarthritis were observed at long-term follow-up regardless of the surgical technique. Furthermore, factors such as the management of associated meniscal injuries and specific variations within arthroscopic techniques (e.g., all-inside vs. transtibial) appeared to be more influential on specific outcomes than the open versus arthroscopic approach itself. Discussion The findings indicate that both surgical methods are effective in restoring knee stability and function. The clinical debate is shifting from a simple open versus arthroscopic comparison to a more nuanced evaluation of procedural variables within arthroscopy, such as graft choice and the use of adjunctive procedures. The high incidence of long-term osteoarthritis suggests that the initial trauma may be a more critical determinant of joint health than the reconstruction method. Conclusion Arthroscopic and open ACL reconstruction techniques yield broadly comparable long-term clinical and functional outcomes. The choice of procedure does not appear to be the most critical factor for long-term success. Future research should focus on refining specific surgical techniques, developing strategies to mitigate post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and personalizing treatment based on patient-specific factors like associated injuries.

Filter by Year

2022 2026


Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 40 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 39 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 39 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 38 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 38 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 37 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 37 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 36 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 36 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 35 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 35 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 34 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 34 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 33 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 33 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 32 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 32 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 31 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 31 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 30 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 30 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 29 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 29 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 28 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 27 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 26 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 26 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 25 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 25 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 24 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 23 No. 1 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 12 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 11 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 10 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 24 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 23 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 22 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 22 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 22 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 22 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 21 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 21 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 21 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 21 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 20 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 20 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 20 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 20 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 19 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 19 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 19 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 19 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 9 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 8 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 7 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 18 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 8 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 7 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 17 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 8 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 7 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 16 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 7 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 15 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 14 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 7 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 13 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 7 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 11 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 10 No. 6 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 10 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 10 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 10 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 10 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 10 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 9 No. 5 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 9 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 9 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 9 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 8 No. 4 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 8 No. 3 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 8 No. 2 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 8 No. 1 (2025): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 7 No. 4 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 7 No. 3 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 7 No. 2 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 7 No. 1 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 6 No. 3 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 6 No. 2 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 6 No. 1 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 8 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 7 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 6 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 5 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 4 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 3 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 4 No. 5 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 4 No. 4 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 4 No. 3 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 4 No. 2 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 4 No. 1 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 3 No. 1 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 8 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 7 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 6 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 5 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 4 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 3 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 2 No. 1 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 1 No. 6 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 1 No. 5 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024) Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024) Vol. 1 No. 1 (2022): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research More Issue