Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science

Uniformity of and Compliance to the Healthy Eating Index for Meal Plans of Two Commercial Diets

Original Research | Open Access | Volume 9 | Issue 1

  • 1. Department Biochemistry, Univ Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA
  • 2. BS Director of NutriEtiquetas, Franklin, MA, USA
  • 3. Research Design and Biostatistics Core, Puerto Rico Clinical and Translational Research Consortium, Puerto Rico, USA
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Alan M Preston, Department of Biochemistry, Univ Puerto Rico, Medical Sciences Campus, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, Tel: 787 234-8817: Fax 787 7582525

Commercial weight-loss organizations gross billions annually, yet few offer an objective measure of diet quality and/or uniformity of day-to-day nutrient intake. The Healthy Eating Index (HEI), a scoring system to evaluate a set of foods, is ideally suited to provide such a measure. Our objective is to determine HEI scores for two typical meal plans from manufacturer’s manuals and evaluate the nutritional quality and consistency. Meal plans to be used are basically: low fat, high carbohydrate (MP 1) and high fat, low carbohydrate (MP 2). Five randomly chosen meal plans were selected from the manufacturer’s manuals which list complete recipes for all daily meals and supplements. Nutrient content will be determined using the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR). HEI component values and scores will be converted with SAS software. These results will be “graded’ on a scale of 0-100 for diet quality. Average daily HEI scores will be compared for uniformity and the five-day average and standard deviation calculated. A random numbers table was used to select 5 of 21 meal plans. For monitoring daily intakes, the analytical method used for HEI was population ratio for the means. MP 1 had an HEI score of 87, classified as “good.” MP 2 had an HEI score of 50, classified as “poor.” MP 1 complied with consistency of nutrients having a day-to-day variation of 2 HEI points. MP 2 was less consistent with a day-to-day variation of 8 HEI points. We conclude that HEI scores allow evaluation of nutritional quality as well as determining uniformity of nutrient intake, both of which are currently unavailable to dieters. This information could influence the choice of meal plans for dieters and manufacturers might consider incorporation into their promotional literature.


•    Healthy Eating Index
•    Commercial Diet
•    High Fat Diet
•    Low Fat Diet


Preston AM, Rodriguez CA, Rivas-Tumanyan S, Preston M (2021) Uniformity of and Compliance to the Healthy Eating Index for Meal Plans of Two Commercial Diets. J Hum Nutr Food Sci 9(1): 1137.


HEI: Healthy Eating Index; MP: Meal Plan


In 2019 the US weight loss and diet control market was valued at $72 billion [1] an amount equivalent to 4 years total funding for the Nationwide School Breakfast and Lunch Programs or more than 10 years revenue at Disneyland. There are almost as many available weight-reduction diet plans as there are reasons for individuals to begin one [2]. Major factors influencing choice of a plan include taste, convenience, and cost, effectiveness of weight management, healthfulness, culture, food contents, and marketing [3]. One additional factor is support, that being persons or references that aid the individuals in the maintenance of their dietary regimes [4]. One such aid is a prescribed eating plan suggested in the diet manual of manufacturers. Recipes are formulated to conform to standards set by the manufacturer as described in the marketing of the diet. Two typical formulations are low fat, high carbohydrate and high fat, low carbohydrate with intermediate protein for both. The questions we pose are: what is the quality of the diets and how uniform is the consistency of the formulations over a period of time? To accomplish this, we have chosen examples of these two types of formulations. Randomly selected meal plans from manufacturer’s diet manuals were analyzed. The Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores [5] calculated for each and compared for quality and uniformity.


The Healthy Eating Index

As transcribed from the USDA website: The HEI is a scoring system to evaluate a set of foods. The scores range from 0 to an ideal of 100. The overall HEI-2015 score is made up of 13 components that reflect the different food groups and key recommendations in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans [6]. These 13 components and scoring system are summarized in Table 1, as redrawn from Krebs-Smith et al [5] (Table 1).

TABLE 1: 1HEI–2015 Components & Scoring Standards.

Component Maximum Points Standard for Maximum Score Standard for Minimum Score of Zero

Adequacy:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Total

Fruits2                                        5                   ≥0.8 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal        No Fruit                                                       Whole Fruits3                                  5                    ≥0.4 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal       No Whole Fruit                                             Total Vegetables4                  5                    ≥1.1 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal       No Vegetables                                                     Greens and Beans44       5                    ≥0.2 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal       No Dark Green Vegetables or

Legumes                                                                                                                                                                                             Whole Grains                10                    ≥1.5 oz equiv.

per 1,000 kcal          No Whole Grains                                                                  Dairy5                               10                    ≥1.3 cup equiv. per 1,000 kcal       No Dairy

Total Protein Foods6       5                    ≥2.5 oz equiv. per 1,000 kcal           No Protein Foods                                                                 Sea Food an

d                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Plant Protein6,7                               5                     ≥0.8 oz equiv. per

1,000 kcal         No Sea Food or Plant Protein                                       Fatty Acids8                                      10                    (PUFAs + MUFAs)/SFAs ≥2.5          (PUFAs + MUFAs)/ SFAs ≤1.2                                              Moderation:                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Refined

Grains             10                     ≤1.8 oz equiv. per 1,000 kcal          ≥4.3 oz equiv. per 1,000 kcal                                                 Sodium                             10                      ≤1.1 gram per 1,000 kcal                ≥2.0 grams per 1,000 kcal                                             Added Sugars                10                      ≤6.5% of energy                                    ≥26% of

energy                                                               Saturated Fats               10                       ≤8% of energy                                      ≥16% of energy

1: Intakes between the minimum and maximum standards are scored proportionately.                                                                2: Includes 100% fruit juice.

3: Includes all forms except juice.                                                                                                                                                                             4: Includes legumes (beans and pe

as).                                                                                                                                         5: Includes all milk products, such as fluid milk, yogurt, and cheese, and fortified soy beverages.                6: Includes legumes (beans and peas).                                                                                                                                         7: Includes seafood, nuts, seeds, soy products (other than beverages), and legumes (beans and peas). 8: Ratio of poly- and monounsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs and MUFAs) to saturated fatty acids (SFAs).

The HEI has most frequently been used for assessing and analyzing diet quality in surveillance, epidemiologic and intervention research and with individuals in clinical settings for the purpose of nutritional counseling [7]. Less frequently, the HEI has been used to assess food supply such as menus in fastfood restaurants [8] and recently, the nutritional quality of the Federal School Lunch and Breakfast programs [9]. The objective of our study is to extend this analysis through determination of the uniformity of and compliance with daily HEI’s for two commercial meal plans.


The menu analysis is extensive using the full power of the Nutrition Data System for Research (NDSR) software of which the 2019 version contains 174 nutrients, nutrient ratios and other food components [10]. HEI values were obtained from NDSR results using the SAS code described on the National Cancer Institute’s website [11].


Focus is on representation of two common types of commercial diets –no attempt is made to endorse or denounce either type. Meal plan 1 (MP 1) includes daily menus for breakfasts, lunches and dinners and typifies a low fat, high carbohydrate diet [12]. This type of nutrient formulation is the basis for the Ornish, Macrobiotic and TLC diets, among others [13] although some incorporate animal protein. The other is high fat, low carbohydrate, mainly animal protein (Diet 2) [14]. This type of nutrient formulation is the basis for the Atkins, Paleo and Keto diets, among others [13]. The other is high fat, low carbohydrate (MP 2) [14]. This type of nutrient formulation is the basis for the Atkins, Paleo and Keto diets, among others [13]. To obtain the HEI’s, we have selected, using a random numbers table, five of the 21 suggested daily menus from our designated commercial diet manuals [12,14] which contain detailed content (ingredients and portion size) for breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and snacks. A thumbnail sketch of each is shown in table 2.

Table 2: Meal Plans.

Breakfast                        Lunch                        Dinner

Menu 1   Honeydew, Toasted      Brown rice             Vegetable platter                                     [13]             bread with spread         Squash, Apples    Sweet potato

.                                                                    Cauliflower             Corn bread, Sherbet

Menu 2   Granola, Yogurt               Fruit salad               Spaghetti, tufu                                     [8[                 Orange juice                    Bread-pudding       Cucumber salad,

.                                 .                                                                                                          fruit-ice

Menu 3    Grains mussili                Zucchini, Spinach Crudite salad, .                 [21]              Grapefruit                       Eggplant                       Bulgar- pilof                           .

Citrus salad               Apple crisps

Menu 4    7 grain cereal                  Cauliflower -            Brussel sprouts           [18]              Orange juice                   salad, Raison-          Green salad                                  .

breadfruit,                Raspberry ice                                      .                                                                   Carrot soup

Menu 5    Fruit coffee cake           Cucumber-yogurt Eggplant, Brown rice              [14]              Orange juice                    soup, Sherbert Green salad

.                                                                                                          Cantaloupe

*No Snacks or Supplements

MP 1* Indicating [meal number] from diet manual12

For clarification purposes, it should be noted that the diet manuals are each structured differently. For MP 1, twenty one daily recipes were listed with no recommendations for the order in which they are to be eaten. Therefore, the meal chosen by random numbers corresponded to the order in the list. For example, the “13” in the first column (Table 2 -top) refers to recipe “13” in the manual. For MP 2, twenty one daily recipes were listed but order in which they are eaten was specified (week and day). An example (Table 2-bottom) is the “Wk 1 M” in the first column. Individual components of the HEI’s for the 5 meal plans are tabulated along with the average of components of all five plans. The composite HEI’s are calculated and plotted on a radar chart as described by Chia et al [14].


Non-repeating randomization of meal plans was achieved using a random numbers table. For estimating usual intake we used the model of two or more recalls per person (meal plans in our case) that distinguish day-to-day variation from variation between individuals. The bivariate method uses the NCI Method measurement error methodology to jointly estimate usual intake for a food or nutrient dietary constituent and energy, taking into account the correlation between the two dietary constituents [15]. This method can be used to estimate each component of the HEI score.


Component-derived values from the NDSR analyses of both meal plans are presented in Table 3 which are used as the basis for calculating the scores for individual components of the HEI’s which appear in table 3.

Chart 1 illustrates the composite HEI’s derived from Table 3. Radar charts are graphical methods of displaying multivariate data in the form of two dimensions [16]. This type of plot is particularly amenable to presentation of HEI’s due to the number of variables and scoring system (different maximum scores 5 or 10). Chart 1 effectively illustrates compliance scores with the dietary components as well as to portray the differences between the two meal plans (Chart 1).

Chart 1 Compliance Scores to the HEI for the Dietary Components of Meal Plans.

Figure 1: Chart 1 Compliance Scores to the HEI for the Dietary Components of Meal Plans.

Discussion will focus on compliance to guidelines and to uniformity of HEI scores. Regarding compliance, MP 1 has an HEI score of 87 out of 100 which is considered as “good” or a grade of “B”. Exemplary diet like the DASH has an HEI of 100 (grade of “A”) [17]. The cumulative HEI-2015 score for Americans is 59 out of 100 or a grade of “F” [6]. This snapshot of overall diet quality indicates that average diets of Americans do not conform to dietary recommendations. MP 2 with an HEI score of 50 out of 100 resembles the national average. It is quite possible that selection of other menus or inclusion of all 21 meal plans would influence some of the 13 component scores, but it is unlikely that the overall HEI could reach 70 points or a grade of “C”. This is due to the fact that ketogenic metabolism takes place only if carbohydrates are minimized and percentage fat is high [18] which makes the whole grain category (10 points) difficult to satisfy and exceeds the maximum calories in the saturated fat category (10 points). Likewise, since carbohydrate restriction requires adequate water, sodium (10 points) is added to prevent electrolyte imbalance. In addition, fruits and vegetables are not major contributors in this type of diet making an additional 20 points questionable.

In fact, knowing the proportion of major nutrients in formulating the MP’s and the components used to create the HEI, compliance can be determined with just one day’s information (although the exact number of points for the 21 days would not be established), MP 1 will always receive a grade of “B” (80+) and possibly “A”, while MP 2 will always receive grades of “D” or “F”). If mono- and/or poly- unsaturated fats replaced saturated fats in MP 2, and with a vitamin/mineral supplement, the index could be elevated.

Regarding uniformity MP 1, HEI scores were relatively consistent over the 5 meals plans showing only a small standard deviation. A more surprising result occurred with MP 2. Values in Tables 3 and 4 showed greater inconsistency. It would be supposed that manufacturers formulate meal plans that would be rather uniform in composition, however our findings suggest otherwise. As with the compliance data, it is possible that our random sample of 5 meal plans represented extreme values and that a complete analysis of the 21 total meals in the commercial diet manual would have yielded more consistency but not negate overall differences between the two meal plans which was found to be more uniform in MP 1 than in MP 2.

Strength of our study includes the manner of data entry. Daily menus for breakfast, lunch and dinner were entered into the NDSR program as would be a 24 hour dietary recall but unlike the type used in epidemiology we are able to bypass typical pitfalls associated with human responses such as under or overestimation of portion size, missed or “phantom” foods, weekday vs weekend eating or data entry errors as well as socioeconomic factors and BMI status [19]. Here we have exact ingredients and portion sizes, copied directly from the meal plans. Consequently, the HEI’s derived from these entries will represent maximum scores that could be achieved by participants assuming 100% fidelity to the meal plans. The information gleaned from both the compliance and uniformity of food quality could be part of the decision-making criteria for the choice of a meal plan [20].


To conclude, we have evaluated two common weightloss meal plans- low fat, high carbohydrate (MP 1) and high fat, low carbohydrate (MP 2) for compliance to the 2015-HEI and uniformity of food quality using 5 meal plans listed in manufacturer’s manuals. Compliance was “good” for MP 1 and “poor” for MP 2 and that overall compliance can be determined with as little as one day’s menu. Uniformity was consistent for MP 1 but relatively inconsistent for MP 2. As mentioned throughout the manuscript, it is unlikely that the average HEI scores generated from 5 of 21 meal plans would be the same if all 21 meal plans were analyzed. However, it is our contention that although scores may be slightly different, our conclusions remain unaltered.


The authors would like to thank Cristina Palacios, PhD, FIU, Miami Fl Grant #1RO1HD098589- 01 for use of the NDSR program as well as the PRCTRC which is supported by NIMHD and NIAID under award # U54MD007587. Finally, we acknowledge support from Drs. Lisa Harnack and Huong Duong at the Nutrition Coordinating Center, Minneapolis, MN for consultation in using SAS software. These individuals have given permission to use their names.


1. The U.S. Weight Loss & Diet Control Market ID: 4753379 Report February 2019 Region: United States 457 Pages Marketdata LLC.

2. Cohen DA, Babey SH. Contextual influences on eating behaviours: heuristic processing and dietary choices. Obesity Rev. 2012; 13: 766- 779.

3. Ree M, Riediger N, Moghadasian, M. Factors affecting food selection in Canadian population. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007; 62: 1255-1262.

4. Verheijden M, Bakx J, Van Weel, Koelen MA, van Staveren WA, et al. Role of social support in lifestyle-focused weight management interventions. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005; 59: S179-S186.

5. Krebs-Smith SM, Pannucci TE, Subar AF. Update of the Healthy Eating Index: HEI- 2015 [published correction appears in J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018; 118: 1591-1602.

6. US. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition Jan 30, 2020.

7. Kirkpatrick SL, Reedy JR, Krebs-Smith SM, Wilson MM, Lerman JL, Tooze JA, et al. Applications of the Healthy Eating Index for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Intervention Research: Considerations and Caveats. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018; 118: 1603-1621.

8. Kirkpatrick SI, Reedy J, Kahle LI, Harris JL, Ohri-Vachaspati P, KrebsSmith SM. Fast-food menu offerings vary in dietary quality, but are consistently poor. Public Health Nutr. 2014; 17: 924-929.

9. Gearan EC, Fox MK. Updated nutritional standards have significantly improved the nutritional quality of school lunches and breakfasts. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020; 120: 363-370.

10. University of Minnesota Nutrition Data System for Research 2019.

11. SAS code. Division of Cancer Control and Population Science website. Updated September11, 2019. Accessed August 30, 2020.

12. Ornish D. Stress, diet and your heart. 1982; Holt, Rineheart and Wilson. New York, NY.

13. Gregory R. 21-day ketogenic diet weight loss challenge. 2018; Rockridge Press, Emeryville,CA.

14. Chia PL, Gedye C, Boutros PC, Wheatley-Price P, John T. Current and Evolving Methods to Visualize Biological Data in Cancer Research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108: djw031.

15. Freedman LS, Guenther PM, Krebs-Smith SM, Dodd KW, Midthune D. A population’s distribution of Healthy Eating Index-2005 component scores can be estimated when more than one 24-hour recall is available. J Nutr. 2010; 140: 1529-1534.

16. Saarya MJ. Radar plots: a useful way for presenting multivariate health care data. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 60: 311-317.

17. Reedy J, Lerman JL, Krebs-Smith SM, Kirkpatrick SI, Pannucci TE, Wilson MM, et al. Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index-2015. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018; 118: 1622-1633.

18. McPherson PAC, McEneny J. The biochemistry of ketogenesis and its role in weight management, neurological disease and oxidative stress. J Physiol Biochem. 2012; 68: 141-151.

19. Cook A, Pryer J, Shetty P. The problem of accuracy in dietary surveys. Analysis of the over 65 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000; 54: 611-616.

20. Weighing the Options: Criteria for Evaluating Weight-Management Programs. Committee to Develop Criteria for Evaluating the Outcomes of Approaches to Prevent and Treat Obesity, Institute of Medicine National Academies Press, 1995; M03 15 -257.

Preston AM, Rodriguez CA, Rivas-Tumanyan S, Preston M (2021) Uniformity of and Compliance to the Healthy Eating Index for Meal Plans of Two Commercial Diets. J Hum Nutr Food Sci 9(1): 1137.

Received : 05 Mar 2021
Accepted : 31 Mar 2021
Published : 31 Mar 2021
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Urology and Research
ISSN : 2379-951X
Launched : 2014
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X