Background Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) is one of the Eastern European countries that lacks data on the epidemiology of ulcerative colitis (UC). Aims We aimed to assess the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of UC in Tuzla Canton of B&H during a 12-year period (1995–2006). Patients and methods We retrospectively evaluated hospital records of both UC inpatients and outpatients residing in Tuzla Canton of B&H (total of 496 280 inhabitants) between 1995 and 2006. Patients that firmly satisfied the diagnostic criteria for UC were included in the study. Incidence rates were calculated with age standardization using European population standards. Trends in incidence were evaluated as moving 3-year averages. Results During the observed period, 214 patients met the diagnostic criteria for UC. The average age-standardized incidence was found to be 3.43/105 inhabitants [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.97–3.89], ranging from 0.22 to 7.44 per 105. The mean annual crude incidence in the last 5 years of study (2002–2006) was 5.55/105 (95% CI = 4.63–6.48). The prevalence of UC during the observed period was found to be 43.1/105 (95% CI = 37.3–48.8). The incidence of UC increased dramatically from the average of 1.01/105 in the period between 1995 and 1997 to 6.04/105 between 2004 and 2006, as did the number of colonoscopies performed, from 29 in 1995 to 850 in 2006. The average yearly incidence of confirmed UC cases detected on colonoscopy was 5.56 per 100 colonoscopies per year (95% CI = 4.81–6.30) and only 3.92 per 100 colonoscopies (95% CI = 3.26–4.57) in the last 5 years of the observed period. Conclusion Tuzla Canton of B&H is a region with an increasing incidence of UC, which is most likely a direct consequence of a wider use of colonoscopy. We believe that in the next few years, the incidence of UC in this region will probably reach the annual incidence rate of 6 per 105 inhabitants.

Background: Accurate estimations of hepatitis B virus transmission risk for any region in Bosnia and Herzegovina are not clearly established. We aimed to determine levels of risk associated with intrafamilial transmission of hepatitis B infection within families in our region. Patients and Methods: Family members of 81 chronic carriers of hepatitis B surface antigen (>6 months positive and considered as index case) were tested for hepatitis B markers. For family members, we recorded their age, sex, and family relationship to the index case, and vaccination status. Results: The proportion of HBsAg positive family members was 25/207 (12.1%), while the proportion of family members with evidence of exposure to HBV was 80/207 (38.6%). Only 17/207 (8.2%) family members had evi--dence of past HBV vaccination. Age was found to be a significant predictor of HBV exposure of family members (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07, P< .001). In a multivariate analysis, HBsAg positivity was associated with a female index case (odds ratio 11.31, 95% CI 3.73-34.32, P< .001), HBeAg positivity in the index case (odds ratio 5.56, 95% CI 1.80-17.23, P< .005) and being a mother of the index case (odds ratio 9.82, 95% CI 2.43-39.68,P< .005). A female index case (odds ratio 4.87, 95% CI 2.21-10.72, P< .001), HBeAg positivity in the index case (odds ratio 3.22, 95% CI 1.15-9.00, P< .05) and being a mother of the index case (odds ratio 3.72, 95% CI 1.19-11.64, P< .05) were also risk factors for HBV exposure among family members. The combination of HBeAg positivity and female index case was a significant predictor for HBsAg positivity of family members (odds ratio 70.39, 95% CI 8.20-604.61, P< .001). Conclusions: Children of HBeAg positive mothers are at highest risk for becoming chronic carriers them--selves and generally, the combination of female sex and HBeAg positivity dramatically increases the chances of HBV transmission within the family.

The whole point of a diagnostic test is to use it to make a diagnosis,thus the obvious need is to know how accurately aparticular diagnostic test detects patients with or without adisease. In order to know it, a clinician or a researcher shouldhave a basic understanding of the principles of objective appraisalof diagnostic tests. In this short review, the authorpresents the most common biostatistical methodology forassessment of the validity of diagnostic tests. Definitions andinterpretations of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negativepredictive values are also provided together with how theyare calculated.

The whole point of a diagnostic test is to use it to make a diagnosis,thus the obvious need is to know how accurately aparticular diagnostic test detects patients with or without adisease. In order to know it, a clinician or a researcher shouldhave a basic understanding of the principles of objectiveappraisal of diagnostic test. In the second part of this shortreview, the author presents the most common biostatisticalmethodology for assessment of a validity of diagnostic tests.Definitions and interpretations of accuracy and likelihoodratio are also provided together with methods of their calculation.

In hypothesis testing, study results expressed through p-values provide information whether to accept or reject a null hypothesis. However, expressed this way they do not provide suffi cient information for a reader to assess the true difference in a measured effect. On the other hand, confi dence interval is informative enough to assess both the difference in a measured effect and its strength and reliability. Confidence interval provides a reader with a span of values that contains the true value with a 95-percent probability and also tells the reader whether the sample is big enough for reliable results.

We aimed to evaluate levels of amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptid (NT-proBNP) in prediction of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure patients. Prospective study on 60 consecutive patients with symptoms and signs of heart failure was performed. Blood samples for NT-proBNP analysis was taken from all test subjects and echocardiography was also done in all of them. According to LVEF value, patients were divided into four groups; those with <or=30%, 31 to 39%, 40 to 49% and >or=50%. NT-proBNP values correlated with LVEF value. Regression analysis was used to evaluate how well NT-proBNP values predict LVEF. We used Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve calculation to evaluate diagnostic performance of NT-proBNP in estimation of LVEF. Average value of NT-proBNP in test group was 3191.69+/-642.89 pg/ml (p<0.001). Average value of NT-proBNP decreased with higher LVEF categories with significant (p<0.001) and high negative correlation (r= -0,75). Stepwise multivariate linear regression analysis showed that logarithmic value of NT-proBNP was excellent predictor of LVEF value (p<0.05). Model equation based on regression analysis was LVEF=88.645-15.311 x log (NT-proBNP). Predictive model for LVEF yielded from regression analysis had sensitivities of 98% and 81%, specificities of 20% and 90%, positive predictive values of 86% and 78% and negative predictive values of 67% and 92% for predicting patients with LVEF<50% and LVEF<40%, respectively. There was negative linear correlation between NT-proBNP and LVEF. NT-proBNP was excellent predictor of LVEF value (p<0.05).