Aim The purpose of the present study was to measure the oral malodor of volunteers by means of a subjective organoleptic method and a sulfide monitor as well as to evaluate the diagnostic value of the Halimeter® in the diagnosis of halitosis. Methods and Materials Sulfide monitoring and organoleptic oral malodor assessment methods were performed on 77 volunteers (51 females, 26 males) selected from academic staff, students, clerks, and patients of the Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Dental School. The organoleptic method of assessment and sulphide monitoring were conducted by three calibrated judges. The Kendall's tau-b correlation analysis was used to calculate correlation coefficients between the sulfide monitor and organoleptic scores. Results The Kendall's correlation coefficient between sulfide monitoring and organoleptic scores was 0.493 (p<0.001). Sensitivity and specificity were assessed to be 61.1% and 87.8% respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) and the negative predictive value (NPV) were 81.5% and 72%, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient for the three episodes of monitoring was calculated as 97%. Conclusion Use of a sulfide montoring device in conjunction with the organoleptic method is an effective strategy for diagnosing oral malodor. Clinical Relevance Because of its small size and simplicity of handling the Halimeter sulfide monitor is convenient to use. This method of evaluation of patients for oral malodor is capable of differentiating normal patients (such as with Pseudohalitosis and halitophobia) from the others and for halitosis screening along with other techniques such as the organoleptic method. However, when used alone, it may lead to a misdiagnosis of some cases in terms of intensity. Citation Baharvand M, Maleki Z, Mohammadi S, Alavi K, Moghaddam EJ. Assessment of Oral Malodor: A Comparison of the Organoleptic Method with Sulfide Monitoring. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 July; (9)5:076-083.

Introduction Animal bites are a significant public health problem, with the majority of bites coming from dogs, cats and humans. These may presented as punctures, abrasions, tears, or avulsions [1]. In general, animals bite occur as a natural, instinctive behavior, especially when they feel threatened or try to get food. An animal bite can cause infection in victims (in both humans and other animals) [2]. One of the most important diseases transmitted by animal bites is rabies. Rabies is one of the most dangerous viral zoonosis, and all mammals can develop the disease [3, 4]. The cause of the disease is a viral nerve-related friend which is belonged to the Rhabdo virus family from the type of Lyssa virus. The disease is mainly transmitted through biting and sometimes through mucous tissue, respiratory tract, placenta, contaminated equipment and transplant organs [5, 6]. Rabies is found in two types of epidemiologic condition: of the city type that is principally released by dogs or rarely by cat species, and the wild type whose repository is wolf, fox, raccoon, weasel and bat because of its fatality, an increasing number of animal bites in human, the loss of livestock and economic damage that can produce by rabies, it is very important. About 97% of deaths from rabies are due to dog bite [7]. Rabies is one of the diseases that has been neglected. this disease is preventable by vaccine, and most deaths occur due to the lack of awareness and poor access to health care [8]. Also, animal bites have serious medical consequences such as the risk of rabies, stroke, wound infection and medical expenses for the health system [9, 10]. More than 2.5 million people worldwide are exposed to prophylaxis after being exposed to animal bites [11]. In addition to the financial costs of preventing and treating

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Survival rates are among the most important factors in quality control and assessment of treatment protocols. This study was aimed to assess the survival rate of colorectal cancer in Eastern Mediterranean Region Countries. In the present study we comprehensively searched 6 international databases including PubMed/Medline, ProQuest, Scopus, Embase, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar for published articles until November 2018. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies was applied to evaluate the quality of included studies. The heterogeneity of papers was assessed with the Cochran Test and I-Square statistics. Meta-regression test was performed based on publication year, sample size and Human Development Index (HDI) of each study. Among the total of 1023 titles found in the systematic search, 43 studies were eligible to be included in the present meta-analysis. According to the results, the 1-year, 3-year and 5-year survival rate of patients with Colorectal Cancer was 88.07% (95% CI, 83.22-92.92), 70.67% (95% CI, 66.40-74.93) and, 57.26% (95% CI, 50.43-64.10); respectively. Furthermore, Meta-regressions did not show significant correlations between survival rate and year, sample size or Human Development Index. Survival rates, especially the 5-year survival rate in the EMRO were less than European countries and the USA. Documented and comprehensive evidence-based findings of the present meta-analysis can be used to enhance policies and outcomes of different medical areas including prophylaxis, treatment and health related objectives in colorectal cancer.

Introduction: Infrared photocoagulation (IRC) was introduced as a mainstay procedure for treatment of hemorrhoids. The present study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of IRC compared to closed hemorrhoidectomy. Methods: Forty patients suffering grade-3 hemorrhoid that referred to the surgery clinic at Imam Hossein hospital in Tehran in 2013 were randomly assigned to groups treated with the IRC modality or Ferguson's closed hemorrhoidectomy method. The patients in the 2 groups were followed-up for the first 24 hours after surgery and 8 weeks later. Postoperative pain was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS) at three time points of 24 hours, 2 weeks and 8 weeks after operation. Results: Regarding bleeding, its overall prevalence was 5.0% in the IRC group and 30.0% in the hemorrhoidectomy group, which was significantly less prevalent in the IRC group. Notably, the IRC group had a lower mean postoperative pain score compared to the hemorrhoidectomy group. Time of return to work was significantly shorter in the IRC group; no difference was found in the mean duration of hospital stay, and recurrence rate across 2 groups. Conclusion: IRC procedure is safer than closed hemorrhoidectomy with lower postoperative pain severity, less secondary bleeding, and leads to earlier return to work in patients with hemorrhoid.