Is it necessary to screen for celiac disease in adult idiopathic osteoporosis?

The aim of this study was to investigate the necessity of screening for celiac disease in idiopathic osteoporotic patients. Osteopenia and osteoporosis are well-known and prevalent complications of celiac disease. However, the relative prevalence of celiac disease among osteoporotic populations is not known, and the benefit of screening for celiac disease among the osteoporotic population remains controversial. We evaluated a total of 560 individuals, 460 with osteoporosis and 100 healthy subjects, from the rheumatology clinic in Imam Khomeini and Shariati hospital by IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase [anti-tTG] for celiac disease. Then individuals with positive serologic test underwent upper GI Endoscopy and 2nd part duodenum biopsies. The clinical findings were evaluated in both groups and were compared with each other. Five [1.08%] of 460 patients with osteoporosis and 1 [1%] of 100 subjects without osteoporosis had celiac disease by positive serologic and pathology results. Three patients with positive serology and pathology results were female. All patients in osteoporotic group had at least one other symptom of celiac disease. Two of them had anemia and others had chronic abdominal pain, recurrent oral aphtous lesion and chronic bloating. In the present study, the prevalence of celiac disease in osteoporotic patients is not high enough to justify recommendation for serologic screening of celiac disease in all patients with idiopathic osteoporosis; but in osteoporotic patients with other celiac or gastrointestinal symptoms and signs, for example iron deficiency anemia, chronic dyspepsia and bloating, constipation or diarrhea and recurrent aphtous lesions, it is necessary to evaluate for celiac disease

[Anthropometric analysis of faces and heads of 18 to 30-year old Persians and its comparison with Caucasian ethnic group]

Anthropometric facial analysis and quantitative measurements are useful methods for diagnosis, as well as planning in plastic surgery. The literature is replete with numerous related studies, few of which are about the Iranian population. This study was conducted to determine the average facial proportions of Iranians and compare it with that of Caucasians. This cross-sectional study was conducted on a convenient sample of 212 Iranians [male=108, female=104] aged 18-30 years who did not have any previous major facial surgery or trauma and their past two generations were Iranian. Measurements between facial landmarks were determined and compared with Caucasians with Student and one sample t-tests [P<0.05, 95% CI]. The intercanthal [en-en] and eye widths [ex-en/R], forehead height 2 [tr-n], trichion-endocanthion [tr-en] and nasofacial and nasofrontal angles were not significantly different between the participating men and women but other facial measurements were significantly different [?<0.05]. The head [ft-ft], eye [ex-en/R/L] and nose widths [al-al] and upper face height [n-sto], nasofrontal angle and nasal tip protrusion in the study population were not significantly different from Caucasians. The upper lip [sn-sto], lower face [sn-gn] and forehead heights [tr-n] and nasofacial angle of the female participants were not significantly different from Caucasian women but other facial measurements were significantly different [?<0.05]. Most facial anthropometric measurements of Iranian subjects were significantly different from those of Caucasians. More precise studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to reach a common conclusion on the facial anthropometric similarities or differences between the two populations