Purpose: This study aimed to assess texture analysis (TA) of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images as a quantitative tool for the differential diagnosis of odontogenic and non-odontogenic maxillary sinusitis (OS and NOS, respectively). Materials and Methods: CBCT images of 40 patients diagnosed with OS (N=20) and NOS (N=20) were evaluated. The gray level co-occurrence (GLCM) matrix parameters, and gray level run length matrix texture (GLRLM) parameters were extracted using manually placed regions of interest on lesion images. Seven texture parameters were calculated using GLCM and 4 parameters using GLRLM. The Mann-Whitney test was used for comparisons between the groups, and the Levene test was performed to confirm the homogeneity of variance (α=5%). Results: The results showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) between the OS and NOS patients regarding 3 TA parameters. NOS patients presented higher values for contrast, while OS patients presented higher values for correlation and inverse difference moment. Greater textural homogeneity was observed in the OS patients than in the NOS patients, with statistically significant differences in standard deviations between the groups for correlation, sum of squares, sum of entropy, and entropy. Conclusion TA enabled quantitative differentiation between OS and NOS on CBCT images by using the parameters of contrast, correlation, and inverse difference moment.

Background: Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established.This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs. Methods: Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopeniaeutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31–1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09–5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50–1.91;P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopeniaeutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42–0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24–1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61–3.38; P=0.4). Conclusions The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.

Background: Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established.This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs. Methods: Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopeniaeutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31–1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09–5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50–1.91;P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopeniaeutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42–0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24–1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61–3.38; P=0.4). Conclusions The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.

Background: Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established.This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs. Methods: Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopeniaeutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31–1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09–5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50–1.91;P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopeniaeutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42–0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24–1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61–3.38; P=0.4). Conclusions The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.

Background: Valganciclovir (ValG) is the most widely used drug for cytomegalovirus (CMV) prophylaxis in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). However, it is associated with dose-limiting side effects and considerable costs. Some centers have identified valacyclovir (ValA) as an economically attractive alternative with a lower risk of bone marrow suppression. The comparative effectiveness of these two drugs is not well-established.This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ValA and ValG for CMV prophylaxis in KTRs. Methods: Searches were conducted of the Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Ovid databases. Endpoints encompassed the incidence of CMV disease, CMV viremia, acute rejection, leukopeniaeutropenia, and other infections, including BK polyomavirus and non-CMV herpesviruses (HVs). Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Six studies, comprising 888 patients (438 receiving ValA), were included. The groups were comparable in CMV viremia incidence (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.31–1.57; P=0.4) and the development of CMV disease (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.09–5.97; P=0.8). No significant differences in acute rejection rates were observed (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50–1.91;P=0.8). However, the rate of leukopeniaeutropenia was significantly lower in the ValA group (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42–0.77; P<0.01). No significant differences were noted for BK viremia (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.24–1.87; P=0.4) or other HV infections (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.61–3.38; P=0.4). Conclusions The drugs demonstrate comparable efficacy in preventing CMV infection following kidney transplantation. However, ValA may have a lower impact on bone marrow suppression.