RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Moreover, CVD accounts for primary cause of death among diabetic patients. Physicians, especially in the primary care setting, have effective role in the management of cardiovascular risk factors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the prevalence of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in Type 2 diabetic patients attending to an urban health center as a primary care center with Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism Diabetes Clinic (IEMDC) as a tertiary center. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was performed on 200 adult diabetic patients attending urban health center (Abouzar Health Center) and 201 diabetic patients in a tertiary center. The patients' cardiovascular risk factors including lipid profile, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), and smoking history were recorded. The number of patients who did not achieve the target according to the American Diabetes Association guidelines was determined and compared. RESULTS: The patients in urban health center were older than those who attending IEMDC (P = 0.004). The duration of diabetes was longer among urban center patients (P < 0.001). Comparison of cardiovascular risk factors between two groups of patients showed a significant number of patients with poor-controlled low-density lipoprotein (75% vs. 44.7%) and triglyceride (74% vs. 51.7%) in patients attending primary center (P < 0.001). However, the prevalence of high diastolic BP (60.6% vs. 44.5%) was significantly higher in patients attending IEMDC (P = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two centers' findings in glycosylated hemoglobin level, high-density lipoprotein level, and systolic BP. CONCLUSIONS: Both centers have failure in target achievement in some risk factors; however, the inability of the primary care center in controlling hyperlipidemia in comparison with the tertiary center is a serious warning to provide training about managing dyslipidemia in these centers.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Ultrasonography is currently being used as one of the diagnostic modalities in various medical emergencies for screening of trauma patients. The diagnostic value of this modality in detection of traumatic chest injuries has been evaluated by several studies but its diagnostic accuracy in diagnosis of pulmonary contusion is a matter of discussion. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography and radiography in detection of pulmonary contusion through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: An extended systematic search was performed by two reviewers in databases of Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest. They extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. After summarization of data into true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative meta-analysis was carried out via a mixed-effects binary regression model. Further subgroup analysis was performed due to a significant heterogeneity between the studies. RESULTS: 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis (1681 chest trauma patients, 76% male). Pooled sensitivity of ultrasonography in detection of pulmonary contusion was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81-0.96; I2= 95.81, p<0.001) and its pooled specificity was calculated to be 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93; I2 = 67.29, p<0.001) while these figures for chest radiography were 0.44 (95% CI: 0.32-0.58; I2= 87.52, p<0.001) and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.88-1.0; I2= 95.22, p<0.001), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the sources of heterogeneity between the studies were sampling method, operator, frequency of the transducer, and sample size. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography was found to be a better screening tool in detection of pulmonary contusion. Moreover, an ultrasonography performed by a radiologist / intensivist with 1-5MHz probe has a higher diagnostic value in identifying pulmonary contusions.