Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • To determine the discriminatory power of the ischiopubic

    2019-05-21

    To determine the discriminatory power of the ischiopubic index, the ROC curve was used (Fig. 3). The area under the curve for sex differentiation was 83.5% for the ischiopubic index. In the study Forskolin with a differentiation point of 100.47°, sensitivity of 82%, specificity of 78%, and accuracy of 80%, the ischiopubic index was different in men and women. In the studied population, significant differences were seen between in mean of the ischiopubic index and the length of the pubis between men and women, such that both of them were significantly more in women than in men (p<0.000). Table 4 shows that the length of the symphysis pubis, width of the pubis body, and ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the width of the pubis body were significantly different in men and women (p<0.000). According to Fig. 4, the under curve surface for the length of the symphysis pubis, midwidth of the pubis body, minimum width of the pubis body, ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the minimum width of the pubis body, and ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the midwidth of the pubis body were 65.8%, 78.8%, 83.6%, 81.1%, and 79.8%, respectively. All the mentioned items were significantly different between men and women (p<0.000). The mean length of the symphysis pubis in men, the minimum and midwidth of the pubis in women, and the mean ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the minimum and midwidth of the pubis in men were higher than the corresponding factors in the opposite sex. A comparison of the mean of the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus and the ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus were significantly different in men and women (p<0.000), as demonstrated in Table 5. According to the ROC curve, the under curve surface for the ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus was 63% (Fig. 5). The differentiation point, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were, respectively, 13 mm, 74%, 86%, and 80% for the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus, and 203.69 mm, 57%, 75%, and 66% for the ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus; this shows the differentiation between men and women. The difference between the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus and the ratio of the length of the symphysis pubis to the minimum width of the pubic superior ramus was significant, Forskolin as the mean of the former was higher in men and the latter was higher in women (p<0.000).
    Discussion The mean values of the subpubic angle in this study were 101.51±13.4 in men and 135.47±14.8 in women, with the mean being significantly more in women than in men. In the study of Igbigbi and Nanono-Igbigbi, the mean values of the subpubic angle were 93.86±21.12 and 116.11±17.79 in men and women, respectively. These angles were larger in an Iranian population than in a black Ugandan study group, which shows the impact of ethnic and regional differences. In the study of Oladipo et al on pelvis radiographs of an Indian population, the mean values of the subpubic angles were 102.31±12.5 in men and 143.28±15.82 in women. In the work of Oladipo et al, the mean values were 109.38±10 in men and 119.48±12.06 in women in a Nigerian population. In the study of Vasheghi Farahani, the mean values of the subpubic angle were 116.31±23.67 and 140.53±14.33 in male and female, respectively. The results of these studies were inconsistent with the result of the current study, wherein the angle was larger in female than in male, and the size of the angles were almost similar to the angle size of this study. In the study of Small et al focusing on black and white South African populations, the mean values of the subpubic angle in male and female were, respectively, 70.67±9.36 and 93.86±11.15 in the white population, and 63.9±11.08 and 84.1±8.9 in the black population. The subpubic angle was significantly larger in the black population than in the white one, and the size of the angle was significantly different in male and female. The subpubic angle in the black population was larger than that in the Iranian population in both men and women. The difference between the result of this study and the results of other studies can be attributed to the shape of the pubic bones, the wide pelvis of Iranians, height differences, and environment.