Objective:Existing literature shows considerable regional differences in terms of hypertension (HT) prevalence in Turkey. The purpose of this study was to analyze some of the known HT risk factors contributing to the variations between urban and rural areas of Turkey in HT development.Methods:We used data from the 2011 Chronic Diseases and Risk Factors Survey that was conducted by the Turkish Ministry of Health on a representative sample of the Turkish adult population aged 20 years or more (n=16.227). HT was defined as having at least one of the following: a mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure of at least 140/90 mm Hg, a previously diagnosed disease, or use of antihypertensive medication. Stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was used to estimate HT risk factors in urban and rural settings.Results:Although the HT prevalence was higher in rural areas (28.4%) than in urban areas (23.9%), in this study, urbanization was found to be a contributing factor in multivariate regression analysis. Furthermore, separate regressions for urban and rural settings revealed that age, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking were independently and positively associated (p<0.05) with HT in both settings, while marital status, employment type, mental health, and lifestyle patterns; nutritional habits; and amount of physical activity and sedentary time (p<0.05) were risk indicators in urban areas only.Conclusion:The findings of our study demonstrate that contributory factors show some variations between urban and rural settings, and on gender within each setting. Taking into account the variations between urban and rural areas in HT development may provide greater insight into the design of prevention strategies.

This study recognized associated risk factors that may guide policies and interventions to enhance awareness, treatment, and control of HT in Turkey.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: To compare the overall diagnostic outcomes of 3D-CBCT sialography and ultrasonography (US) in the detection of sialolithiasis, ductal dilatation, and ductal stenosis. Methods: This retrospective monocentric study compared the two imaging modalities carried out in the same patients referred for salivary symptoms of the parotid and submandibular glands. The primary endpoint was the capacity of the imaging procedure to diagnose a lesion. The secondary objectives were the detection rates according to the type of lesion, analysis of the causes of failure, and the parameters of radiation exposure and safety (for 3D-CBCT sialography). Results: Of the 236 patients who received a 3D-CBCT sialography in our institution, 157 were ultimately included in the per-protocol analysis. 3D-CBCT sialography allowed detection of ductal lesions in 113 patients versus 86 with US. The two imaging modalities yielded congruent interpretations in 104 out of 157 subjects (66.2%). Higher sensitivity and negative predictive value were observed with 3D-CBCT sialography compared with US, irrespective of the lesions studied: 0.85 vs 0.65 and 0.70 vs 0.44, respectively. Regarding the sialolithiasis, both 3D-CBCT sialography and US allowed identification of lesions with high sensitivity and negative predictive value (0.80 vs 0.75 and 0.88 vs 0.78, respectively). Conclusions: US remains the first-line examination for exploration of the salivary lesions. 3D-CBCT sialography is an alternative in case of inconclusive US, and prior to any endoscopic procedure.