Results of the Ph.D. STUDENTS - SCREENING COMMITTEE – JANUARY 2024 SESSION

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

1.

Dr. Nanditha R.

Medical

1.  The topic chosen is very simple (Prevalence study) - study

     with no new knowledge addressed or explored.

2.   There was no additional knowledge  or  benefit to the society.

Not Accepted

2.

Dr. Anbarasan B.

Siddha

1.  Mention source of the trial drug as that of ASUTAB

      approved text.

2.  Specify Pharmacovigilance component.

3.  Trial drug should be in accordance with GMP Guidelines.

4.  CTRI registration is mandatory.

Accepted with Recommendation

3.

Dr. Balamurugan S.

Siddha

---

Accepted

4.

Dr. Vishnu Priya K.

Siddha

1.      Obtain rights for the use of Oswestry LBD Questionnaire

Including  validated Tamil version.

2.  Assumption for all the 3 arms and revisit sample size

     thereof.

3.  Primary outcome – basis and definition have to be stated.

Accepted with Recommendation

5.

Dr. Shalini B.

Siddha

1.  Clarify the primary outcome variable and provide

     Rationale  and  definitions.

2.  Revisit the sample size assumptions  and calculation.

3.  Asthma Questionnaire  – to obtain rights and Tamil version.

Accepted with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

6.

Dr. Vadivelan S.

Siddha

  To include mast cell stabilization activity.

Accepted with Recommendation

7.

Dr. Thanganila G.

Siddha

   The “Pugaiyilai Uppu”  needs to be replaced with an

   alternative and resubmit the proposal.  

Not Accepted

8.

Dr. Janani Syamaroopa

      Jnana Thapaswini

Siddha

1.  Revisit and Specify the primary outcome variable.

2.  Revisit inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3.  Duration of the intervention drug administration may be

     revised to 120 days.

Accepted with Recommendation

9.

Dr. Ganapathi R.

Siddha

---

Accepted

10.

Dr. Mary Sharmila C.

Siddha

  “Pakkavatham” may be rephrased as per the classica text

   “Pakshavatham”.

Accepted with Recommendation

11.

Dr. Thenmozhi P.

Siddha

---

Accepted

12.

Dr. Sarojini T.

Siddha

  Add “immunomodulatory” activity.

Accepted with Recommendation

13.

Dr. Sathyaseela R.

Siddha

---

Accepted

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

14.

Dr. Sangeetha R. Nayak

Homoeopathy

---

Absent

15.

Dr. Aarathy Y.

Homoeopathy

1.  Poor study design.

2.  Biased

3.  There is no standardization of the study participant.

4.  There is no new knowledge.

5.  Simple capture of data without involvement of the researcher as the

     research is at Coimbatore and data capture at Kulasekharam.

6.  Mention study period as 4 years.

7.  There is no involvement of manual repertory as a researcher.

8.  Using alternative medicine additionally.

Not Accepted

16.

Dr. Chinchu B

Homoeopathy

---

Absent

17.

Dr. Kathirvel Raja M.U.

Homoeopathy

---

Absent

18.

Dr. Nagendran T.K.

Homoeopathy

1.  No New Knowledge.

2.  Poor study design.

3.  There was no clarity in the presentation by the researcher candidate.

4.  Intervention does not mention clearly the treatment.

Not Accepted

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

19.

Ms. Sruthi Vinod

Pharmacy

     Advised to change the title to “Analytical and Bioanalytical method      Development for Estimation of Fixed dose combinations in antidiabetic drugs: A Quality by Design Approach”.

Accepted with Recommendation

20.

Ms. Shyamala S.

Pharmacy

      In the current status there are lot of limitations  for  study in the context of Ph.D. work.  The topic and study scope can be expanded from the current post graduate level work to the Doctoral level work, ensuring focus to antineoplastic and anti-inflammatory study along with Genomic work relevant to the topic. 

     Animal Ethical Clearance Certificate to be obtained for the use of rats.  After incorporating the above, the proposal can be resubmitted.

Not Accepted

21.

Ms. Indhupriyadharshini M.

Pharmacy

     Satisfied with the presentation and the work proposed.  However, advised to make sure that there is no dropouts during the follow-up study.

Accepted

22.

Mr. Abraham Theodore Rajaselwin E.

Pharmacy

1.  Advised to include Gene expression study relates to Thyroid disease  for the Niosomal formulation study.

2.   Advised to change title to “Development and Characterization of Bauhinia Variegata Linn bark extract Niosomes and Evaluation of Antithyroid  activity “.

Accepted with Recommendation

23.

Ms. Sruthy Jacob I.

Pharmacy

1.  IAEC approval for Zebra fish study not obtained.  It should be in the name of Candidate.

2.   Title must be changed to “Formulation and Evaluation of Potential Phytoconstituents targetting Uterine Fibroid in animal models”.

Accepted with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

24.

Mr. Rajaram G.

Pharmacy

1.  Advised to include cell line study and gene expression study in the current proposal.

2.   Title begins with Restoration to be replaced with Evaluation.

3.  In Proposal Page 9, under Drug administration rats to be replaced with mice as per IAEC approval.

4.  Activity for isolated compound to be done.

Accepted with Recommendation

25.

Mr. Nishvanth F

Pharmacy

1.  Advised to study for isolated compound by In Vivo not In Vitro.

2.  Animal Ethical Clearance to be obtained for other In Vivo Study.  He has obtained only for acute toxicity study.

Accepted with Recommendation

26.

Ms. Ramya N.

Pharmacy

---

Absent

27.

Mr. Radhakrishnan S.

Pharmacy

---

Absent

28.

Mr. Manas Kumar G.

Pharmacy

1.  In last December, this proposal was rejected on the grounds that “In Vivo Study to be included”.

2.  Now the candidate included In Vivo study.

3.  Animal Ethical Clearance obtained by the Candidate on 7^th march 2024.  He is advised to submit the IAEC Certificate to University.

Accepted

29.

Ms. Jayalakshmi Venugopal

Pharmacy

1.  In December 2023, the candidate proposal was not accepted due to non production of IAEC Certificate.

2.  Now candidate produced  IAEC Certificate.

Accepted

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

30.

Mr. Siva Subramaniyan P.

Pharmacy

1.  In the title, whole title to be modified as “Effectiveness of isolated compounds from Leucas  Aspera Linn against Diabetes and its associated disorders in animal models”.

2.  Advised to include disorders associated with diabetes in the study and its Evaluation Parameters.

Accepted with Recommendation

31.

Mr. Yabes Immanuel R.

Pharmacy

1.  In the title the word VIA to be replaced with In.

2.  Candidate appeard in December 2023.   He is advised to resubmit the protocol for not mentioning Monograph ID.

3.  Now, Candidate mentioned Monograph ID for drug chosen for the study.

Accepted

32.

Mr. Jaikumar R.D.

Pharmacy

  Advised to change the title to “Nose to Brain Drug Delivery: Formulationn and Evaluation of BRIVARACETAM NANO EMULSION NASAL SPRAY for EPILEPSY in animal models.

Accepted

33.

Mr. Darbi D.R.

Nursing

1.  Scope of the study is narrow.

2.  Sample size not justified.

3.  Nursing Intervention is not appropriate and requires more clarity.

Not Accepted

34.

Ms. Kavitha S.

Nursing

1.  Intervention needs clarity with the type and duration of music and its effect.

2.  Inclusion criteria need to be modified.

3.  Design to be changed as RCT.

4.  Calculate sample size accordingly. 

Accepted with Recommendation

35.

Ms. Dava Johnsy D.

Nursing

1.  Scope of the study is narrow.

2.  No innovation  and weak design.

3.  Problem is not appropriate for the research study.

Not Accepted

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

36.

Ms. Rajeshwari G

Nursing

1.  Scope of the study is narrow.

2.  Inclusion criteria is not clear.

3.  Intervention does not address all variables.

4.  Not appropriate for Ph.D Study.

Not Accepted

37.

Ms. Bruelin Melshia M.

Nursing

1.  Need to add one more dependent variable.

2.  No assent form available as population are children.

3.  Sample size need to be calculated appropriately.

Accepted  with Recommendation

38.

Ms. Shingare Sathyabhama Bansi

Nursing

1.  Variables not appropriate.

2.  Intervention is not appropriate and lacks clarity.

3.  Scope is not for Ph.D. study.

Not Accepted 

39.

Ms. Sabitha Anto V.

Nursing

1.  No novelty.

2.  Study already available.

3.  Intervention is not appropriate.

Not Accepted 

40.

Ms. Aslin Johnsi L.

Nursing

1.  Rigor of methodology needs to be increased.

2.  Nursing Intervention needs to be included and refined.

3.  Design to be modified as RCT.

Accepted  with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

41.

Ms. Ida Divya Sherly E.

Nursing

1.  Define terminally ill patients properly.

2.  Justify the availability of samples at the single centre.

3.  Simplify the Intervention and name it in away that a common man can understand.

4.  Check the sampling technique.

Accepted  with Recommendation

42.

Ms. Vanaja R.

Nursing

1.  Increase sample size accordingly.

2.  Research design to be changed as quasi or true experimental design.

Accepted  with Recommendation

43.

Ms.Birgin R.

Nursing

Candidate lacks in clarity about Methodology, Intervention and Sample size estimation.

Not Accepted 

44.

Ms.Rosalind Immanuel

Nursing

Candidate lacks in clarity about her study.  Methodology is not clear.  Narrow in scope,  Talk therapy and counselling is not clear.

Not Accepted 

45.

Ms.Latha C.

Nursing

1.  Intervention does not talk about rehabilitation rather talks about acceptability of a product.

2.  Sample size estimation is not clear and availability of sample and inclusion criteria is not clear.

Not Accepted 

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

46.

Ms.Indumathi Deepa V.

Nursing

1.  Make it Randomised controlled study.

2.  Explain the school sampling method.

3.  Recalculate the sample size.

4.  Modify the title.

5.  Check Cortisol for all.

6.  How emotional well being is assessed – should be explained – Use scale / questionnaire for the same.

7.  Too many Interventions.  Make it precise.

8.  Outcome should be stated as Primary and Secondary.

9.  Get permission letter from school and parents.

10. Get permission for using the quoted scales / questionnaires.

11. Validate the knowledge questionnaire.

12. Change the data analysis slide.

Not Accepted 

47.

Ms. Kalaivani K.

Nursing

1.  Statement of the problem to be modified.

2.  Sample size.  Recalculated for both quantitative and qualitative.

3.  Get permission for the using the tools.

4.  Explain all the phases (APP development and implementation).

5.  Describe how the APP is being designed and developed.  Describe about the IT involved.

6.  Qualitative part can be discriptive rather than phenomenological.

Accepted  with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

48.

Ms. Shajin Giji Y.

Nursing

1.  Statement of the problem and objective to be modified.

2.  How many hospitals selected and how is sampling done – to be explained.

3.  Permission for tools.

4.  Validity and Reliability to be modified.

Accepted  with Recommendation

49.

Ms. Devi K.

Nursing

---

Absent

50.

Ms. Mathivathani R.

Nursing

1.  Include only level of PCOS as an outcome variable and BMI as clinical variable.

2.  Modify Research design (RCT)

3.  Multigroup Intervention.

Accepted  with Recommendation

51.

Ms. Menaka D.

Nursing

1.  Biophysiological measures – How often is measured?

2.  How is randomization going to be done? Explain.

3.  Variables can be maternal and neonatal outcomes and maternal outcomes can be defined in operational definition including all aspects such as knowledge, practice, etc....

4.  Please modify objectives.

Accepted  with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

52.

Ms. Jessicca Esther N.

Nursing

1.  To remove self harm – dependent variables can be social adaptability, resilience and psychological wellbeing.

2.  Sample size to be calculated based on variables.

3. Sampling to be explained.

4. Modify objectives as discussed.

5. Change selected setting as selected schools in.

6. Remove unnecessary aspects in Demographic variables and be specific.

Accepted  with Recommendation

53.

Ms. Nandhini P.

Nursing

1.  Intervention – especially related to the mobile app has to be clarified.

2.  Sample size calculation.

3. Sampling and randomization of schools have to be clarified.

4. Setting can be mentioned as schools.

5. Check analysis statistics.

Accepted  with Recommendation

54.

Ms. Muthulakshmi S.

Nursing

1.  Objectives need to be modified.  Include also the objective related to correlation and include it in hypothesis.

2.  Change the conceptual framework.

3. Tool to get permission.

Accepted  with Recommendation

55.

Ms. Deepa K.

Nursing

1.  Modify Objectives.

2.  Hypothesis related to correlation to be added.

3. Intervention need to be specific and clear.

4. Sample size to be calculated first for screening for depression.

5. Statistical tests to be corrected.

6. What will be done to those who are classified as severe depression?

Accepted  with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

56.

Ms. Jeba Linu S.

Nursing

1.  Modify Objectives.

2.  Include hypothesis related to correlation.

3.  Sample size calculation.

4.  Sampling has to be clarified.

5.  Setting and also recruitment of participants have to be clarified.

6.  Title should include setting.

7.  Check reliability method for knowledge questionnaire.

Accepted  with Recommendation

57.

Ms. Sundarambal R.

Nursing

---

Absent

58.

Ms. Jerlin Francy Rajan

Nursing

1.  Berlin questionnaire can diagnose the risk only not sleep Apnoea.

2.  Population range is very wide.

3.  Tools inappropriate.

4.  Researcher is not authenticated to diagnose sleep Apnoea. Based on Berlin questionnaire diagnosing sleep Apnoea is not correct.

Not Accepted 

59.

Ms. Maria Anandhi Lousie

Nursing

1.  Title – to be Reframed.

2.  Setting – Community instead of Hospital.

3.  Inclusion criteria – allow from 25 - 65

4.  Ethical Consideration – In case of postive results ensuring counseling and treatment.

Accepted  with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

60.

Mr. Samuel Prabakar P

Nursing

1.  The scholar is not thorough with the research topic.

2.  Not able to explain the clinical variables or the self management training.

3.  Tools not presented.

Not Accepted 

61.

Ms. Sunitha J.

Nursing

1.  CIP is not innovative it's very preliminary level.

2.  Study is not upto Ph.D. level.

Not Accepted 

62.

Ms. Suganthi C.

Nursing

1.  Scholar is unable to explain the innovation component.

2.  Study is not upto Ph.D. level.

3.  Study data collection tools not attached.

Not Accepted 

63.

Ms. Joy Kezia R.

Nursing

  The term Anemia Mukth Bharath is a Government Sponsored Program.  Therefore, the approval from relevant authorities of School Education  and Chennai Corporation Health authorities is mandatory.  If approved letters are submitted, the study can be permitted ensuring representativeness  and higher sample size.

Accepted  with Recommendation

64.

Ms. Thamaraivalli M.

Nursing

1. The candidate has to adhere the random sampling and SOP to be developed for this.

2. Clearly depict the random sampling technique ensuring representativeness

3.  Make this study for Thiruvallur District / Chennai (at District level).

4.  Accordingly sample size to be increased.

Accepted  with Recommendation

Sl. No.

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE

FACULTY

REMARKS OF THE

 SCREENING COMMITTEE

RESULT

65.

Ms. Annlin Smila S.

Nursing

1. The intervention bundle lacks clarity.

2. Inclusion criteria not spelt out properly.

3. Scholar is not confident on her study.

4. Tools not enclosed.

Accepted  with Recommendation

66.

Ms. Santhi Thamizharasi P.

Nursing

1. The study is not upto Ph.D. level.

2. Not appropriate, no major nursing implication.

Not Accepted

67.

Ms. Jeeva Sebastian

Nursing

No modification – Accepted.

 Accepted

#

Remarks

PhD Scholar’s response

Page number(s) and Line number (s)

1

2

3

4

5