[ effect of water birth on the duration of labor and pain level in comparison with land birth]

Due to the objectives of the World Health Organization and ministry of health concerning decreasing the rate of cesarean section, elective cesarean substitutes have to be investigated. Consequently, this study tried to evaluate the effect of water birth as a vaginal delivery method without the physician intervention on decreasing the pain level and the labor duration. This clinical trial study was carried out on 100 G1 and G2 pregnant women of 38 to 42-week pregnancy referring to Assalian Clinic. The samples were divided into two 50-member groups undergoing either water birth or land birth. The labor duration, as well as the pain level were evaluated and analyzed statistically using Chi-Square, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Mann-Whitney test, and the p< 0.05 criterion was considered to be significant. We found that the average duration of the active phase of pregnancy for water birth was 3.1 +/- 0.8 hours compared to the same duration in the opposite group which was 4.7 +/- 0.8 hours showing a statistically significant decrease [p<0.05]. Moreover, the duration of the second stage of water birth group was 0.53 +/- 0.22 hours in comparison with 0.88 +/- 0.43 hours for the second group. Based on the p<0.05 criterion, the duration of the second stage of labor significantly decreased for water birth. The pain levels were determined in both groups using Visual Analog Score, which are: 3.53 +/- 0.79 and 6.96 +/- 1.7 for water birth and land birth respectively based on the criterion, and the decrease in the pain level was considered to be significant for water birth. Results of the study suggested that the water birth may have been a non-pharmaceutical and non-invasive substitute for the selected cesarean cases due to the shorter labor, the lower pain level, and the lowered physician intervention

Comparison of salivary anti helicobacter pylori IgG serum IgG with and bacteriological tests in detecting helicobacter pylori infections

This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] for detecting anti-Helicobacter pylori [H. pylori] specific IgG antibodies in specimens of oral fluid and serum with bacteriological tests. Antral biopsy specimens, as well as serum and oral fluid samples were collected from 97 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The presence or absence of current H. pylori infection was determined by culture, histology and urease detection. Anti-H. pylori specific IgG was detected in serum and oral fluid, using an established lab-made, and a commercial ELISA kit. The obtained data were compared with results of bacteriological tests. In all, 62 [64%] of 97 patients were positive for H. pylori by one or more of the gold standard tests [culture, histology and urease detection]. Lab-made enzyme-linked immunoassay of oral fluid had a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 83% respectively. A sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 83%, respectively, was obtained with the commercial kit. Lab-made enzyme-linked immunoassay of serum samples had a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 88%, respectively. A sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 86% was obtained with the commercial kit. Detection of anti-H. pylori specific IgG in oral fluid by ELISA is comparable in sensitivity and specificity with serum based methods. Oral fluid based ELISA could provide a reliable, non-invasive method for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. Saliva testing may have a role in epidemiological studies