Background and Objective: Intraoperative consultation by frozen section is a high – risk procedure with important consequences. Therefore, it is critical to determine efficiency of frozen section performance periodically. This study was performed to determine the Accuracy of frozen section in Urmia University of Medical Sciences.Materials & Methods: In this cross sectional study, we compared the results of 200 consecutive cases of frozen sections with theirfinal permanent section diagnoses in teaching hospitals of Urmia University of Medical Sciences during March 2001 to March 2008.Results: A total of 155 neoplastic and 45 nonneoplastic specimens were studied. The overall Accuracy of frozen sections was 96.5%. In diagnosis of neoplastic lesions, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and Accuracy were 93.1%, 97.7%, 96%, 95% and 95.9%, respectively.Conclusion: In this university interpretation of frozen sections is done with high Accuracy and is valuable to help surgeons to plan the best management of the operation.

Introduction: Trauma scoring systems help physicians and nurses to be informed of injuries to a patient and assist their decision making in the cases of trauma and importantly prediction of their outcome and prognosis. Objective: This study aimed to compare the Accuracy of GAP and MGAP scoring systems as predictors of mortality in trauma patients. Methods: This diagnostic Accuracy study was conducted amongst 1861 trauma patients admitted to Rajaee Hospital in Shiraz, Iran, during 2017. The data on demographic features were extracted from the patients’ records. Then, trauma scoring systems including injury severity score (ISS), GAP, MGAP, and Glasgow coma scale (GCS) were compared to evaluate their Accuracy in predicting mortality. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the Accuracy of different trauma scoring systems and detect the sensitivity and specificity in order to predict status of discharge after 24 hours. Results: Based on the results, the area under the ROC curve was 0. 8 for GCS. Moreover, Area Under Curve (AUC) of GAP was 0. 91 and amongst different values, GAP value of ≤ 18 was selected as the cut-off point, since it exhibited the best sensitivity and specificity (72. 99 and 95. 52, respectively). In addition, the area under the ROC curve was 0. 9 for MGAP, and value of ≤ 23 was selected as the cut-off point because it showed the best sensitivity and specificity (81. 04 and 87. 70, respectively). Additionally, AUC of ISS was 0. 88. Conclusion: Both GAP and MGAP methods were able to appropriately predict mortality and were not significantly different; hence, both can be used for the right triage of patients and to predict the severity of injuries and subsequent mortality. Moreover, GAP and ISS had the best specificity and sensitivity, respectively.

Background: Several reports have determined that cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are common complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lead them to poor outcomes. CVD biomarkers have, thus, great potential to be used as prognostic biomarkers. We aimed to determine the Accuracy of CVD biomarkers for the prognosis of the COVID-19 patient’ s outcome via a diagnostic test Accuracy (DTA) meta-analysis. Methods: Until September 30, 2020, we searched Web of Sciences, Scopus, and MEDLINE/PubMed databases to obtain related papers. The summary points and lines were calculated using bivariate/HSROC model. As outcomes, we considered critical conditions and mortality. Results: A total of 17 659 patients from 33 studies were included. Five biomarkers, namely increased levels of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), cardiac troponin I (cTnI), creatine kinase (CK), D-dimer, and thrombocytopenia, met the inclusion criteria. Our results indicated that LDH and cTnI had good Accuracy for the prognosis of critical condition (AUCHSROC=0. 83 and 0. 80, respectively), while LDH, cTnI, and D-dimer had acceptable Accuracy (AUCHSROC=0. 74, 0. 71, and 0. 72, respectively) for the prognosis of mortality. LDH and D-dimer had high sensitivity, whereas cTnI had high specificity. The other biomarkers did not have acceptable Accuracy. Significant publication bias was found for D-dimer (P=0. 053). Conclusion: Among CVD biomarkers, LDH and cTnI had good Accuracy for the prognosis of critical outcomes and acceptable Accuracy for the prognosis of mortality, without publication bias. Given their different sensitivities and specificities, we recommend the use of these 2 biomarkers concomitantly.

Background/Objective: Digitized mammography has several advantages over screen-film radiography in data storage and retrieval, making it a useful alternative to screen-film mammography in screening programs. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic Accuracy of digitized mammography in detecting breast cancer.Patients and Methods: 185 women (845 Images) were digitized at 600 dpi. All images were reviewed by an expert radiologist. The mammograms were scored on a scale of breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS). The definite diagnosis was made either on the pathologic results of breast biopsy, or upon the follow-up of at least one year. The overall diagnostic Accuracy of digitized mammography was calculated by the area under receiver operating characteristic curve.Results: 242 sets of mammograms had no lesions. The total counts of masses, microcalcifications or both in one breast were 39 (11%), 42 (12%), and 25 (7%), respectively. There were 321 (92%) benign and 27 (8%) definite malignant lesions. The diagnostic Accuracy of digitized images was 96.34% (95% CI: 94%–98%).Conclusion: The diagnostic Accuracy of digitized mammography is comparably good or even better than the published results. The digitized mammography is a good substitute modality for screen-film mammography in screening programs.