Background and Objective: The rate of parental attitude and view toward the treatment modality of child is the one of the most important factors of the treatment. The aim of this study was the evaluation of parental view and attitude toward dental treatment under general anesthesia. Materials and Methods: In this descriptive cross sectional study, the participants, were parents whose children had recently undergone dental treatment under general anesthesia. The parents were given two self-administered questionnaire inquiring about their reasons and view toward the dental treatment under general anesthesia. Statistical analysis was performed by using Mann Whitney, Crosstab and Correlation tests. Results: Our results showed that more than 80% of parents have moderate to high satisfaction about practice. Dentist’s refer was the first reason for this treatment modality followed by relatives recommendation. More than 45% of parents indicated that lack of child fear was the most important advantage of this type of treatment. From parent’s point of view previous sever pain experience and fear that transferred from relatives were the most important reason for child’s fear from dental treatment. Conclusion: According to these results most of parents satisfied with their child’s dental treatment under general anesthesia, so promotion of social knowledge about dental treatment under general anesthesia could improve children’s dental care and oral hygiene.

Background & Objective: Escherichia coli (E. coli) is considered to be the most common cause of urinary tract infections (UTIs) worldwide. Due to the recent rise in bacterial resistance to antibiotics and the appearance of multidrug-resistant E. coli, treatment options have been significantly limited, thus increasing the cost of treatment as well as morbidity and mortality rates, especially in developing countries. This study aimed to identify the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of E. coli for use in early empirical treatments and cultures of negative UTIs caused by previous antibiotic usage.
Materials & Methods: In the present study, 704 urine samples with a positive culture of E. coli were evaluated in terms of susceptibility to gentamycin, nitrofurantoin, ceftazidime, cefixime, meropenem, cefepime, azithromycin, ceftriaxone and ciprofloxacin using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method. Data were collected based on age, sex, and hospitalization or ambulatory patient status. Data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0.
Results: E. coli showed the lowest resistance to nitrofurantoin (4.5%) and the highest resistance to cefixime (34.9). There was a statistically significant relationship between antibiotic resistance and age, gender, and hospitalization status
Conclusion: Because of the high resistance rate of E. coli to cefixime, precautions should be taken before using cefixime to treat UTIs.

Background and Objective: Socioeconomic impact evaluation is a systematic and data based analysis; it aims to determine the socioeconomic benefit of science in human life and health, organizational capabilities, decision making and so on.  In this study, we intended to present the results of socioeconomic impact assessment in Iranian Universities of Medical Sciences (IUMS).
Materials and Methods: Based on SciVal database, socioeconomic impact indicators consist of two categories: Citing – Patent Count (C-P), Patent-Cited Scholarly Output (P-CS), Patent-Citations Count (P-C) and Patent-Citations per Scholarly Output (P-C/S) for economic impact, and Mass Media (MM), Media Exposure (ME) and Field-Weighted Mass Media (F-WMM) for societal impact. Mentioned indicators were extracted for all of IUMS during 2015-2018. Preparation, extraction, weighting, scoring and ranking were the main performed steps in this study.
Results: Almost 64% of IUMS had research activities, reflected their socioeconomic impacts. The C-P was 242 in all IUMS. The number of P-CS and P-C was 165 and 255, respectively. Also, the average of P-C/S was 1.93 (Max=6.4, Min=0.5). Related to societal impact, only 1% of published articles had been presented in media by IUMS (Mass Exposure). The average of F-WMM was 0.03.
Conclusion: Socioeconomic impact evaluation is very complex; it involves a large scale of direct and indirect activities.  Therefore, evaluation with a limited number of indicators cannot provide a comprehensive view of impact. Quantity and quality of universities' research activities are likely matters in socioeconomic impact.