Introduction: Data regarding prognostic factors of post-discharge mortality and adverse renal function outcome in acute kidney injury (AKI) hospital survivors are scarce and controversial. Objectives: We aimed to identify predictors of post-discharge mortality and adverse renal function outcome in AKI hospital survivors. Patients and Methods: The study group consisted of 84 AKI hospital survivors admitted to the tertiary medical center during 2-year period. Baseline clinical parameters, with renal outcome 3 months after discharge and 6-month mortality were evaluated. According survival and renal function outcome, patients were divided into two groups. Results: Patients who did not recover renal function were statistically significantly older (P < 0.007) with higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score (P < 0.000) and more likely to have anuria and oliguria (P = 0.008) compared to those with recovery. Deceased AKI patients were statistically significantly older (P < 0.000), with higher CCI score (P < 0.000), greater prevalence of sepsis (P =0.004), higher levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) (P < 0.017) and ferritin (P < 0.051) and lower concentrations of albumin (P<0.01) compared to survivors. By multivariate analysis, independent predictors of adverse renal outcome were female gender (P =0.033), increasing CCI (P =0.000), presence of pre-existing chronic kidney disease (P =0.000) and diabetes mellitus (P =0.019) as well as acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) (P =0.032), while protective factor for renal function outcome was higher urine output (P =0.009). Independent predictors of post-discharge mortality were female gender (P =0.04), higher CCI score (P =0.001) and sepsis (P =0.034). Conclusion: Female AKI hospital survivors with increasing burden of comorbidities, diagnosis of sepsis and ADHF seem to be at high-risk for poor post-discharge outcome.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a major health problem in South Eastern Europe (SEE). Available treatment options are not efficient enough and the course is often chronic. Little is known about molecular mediators and moderators of pathogenesis and therapy. Genetic and epigenetic variation may be one central molecular mechanism. We therefore established a consortium combining clinical expertise on PTSD from SEE countries Bosnia-Herzegovina (Sarajevo, Tuzla and Mostar), Kosovo (Prishtina) and Croatia (Zagreb) with genetic and epigenetic competence from Germany (Würzburg) in 2011 within the framework of the DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst)-funded Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe. After obtaining ethical votes and performing rater trainings as well as training in DNA extraction from EDTA blood between 2011 and 2013, we recruited 747 individuals who had experienced war-related trauma in the SEE conflicts between 1991 and 1999. 236 participants had current PTSD, 161 lifetime PTSD and 350 did not have and never had PTSD. Demographic and clinical data are currently merged together with genetic and epigenetic data in a single database to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the role of genetic and epigenetic variation in the pathogenesis and therapy of PTSD. Analyses will be done to a great degree by PhD students from participating SEE centers who in addition to participation in the project had an opportunity to take part in spring and summer schools of the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) funded Research Training Group (RTG) 1253 and thus meet PhD students from Germany and other countries We are confident that our project will not only contribute to a better understanding of genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of PTSD as a basis for future individualized and personalized therapies, but also to the academic development of South Eastern Europe.

Aim: Asthma and obesity represent one of the most crucial public and health problems of modern society that frequently begin in childhood and have some mutual elements of risk. Abdominal distribution of connective tissue is important determinant which brings to decrease of lungs function. Multiple influence of overweight on function of the lungs would clearly manifest over reduction of forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). Method: Examining was conducted at Pediatric Clinic of University Clinical Hospital Tuzla during the year 2013/2014. Research included 60 children with diagnosed asthma who were in relation to BMI were divided in 3 groups. The first group was children with BMI ranging from 5 to 85 percentile, the second were children with 85 to 95 percentile and the third was 95 percentile. By prospective study, compared identical pulmonary variable for all three age group of asthma patients were analyzed, the children with normal body mass a well as the overweight and the obese. Results: At the beginning of testing, the frequency of normal spirometric findings was significantly lower in the obese group in comparison with other two observed groups (p<0,05). The only cases of mixed and restrictive disorder of ventilation were registered in the obese group of tested at the beginning of the examined (p<r0,001). Conclusion: When being compared the values of spirometric parameters before and after the research, the only significant difference was in the obese group, the values after tests were significantly higher, with the exception of relation FEV1/FVC, that had the same distribution of values before and after research. However, the group with normal body mass and overweight, had all the spirometric parameters with equal distribution before and after research (p>0,05 for all measurements).

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won (1). Each article, which is submitted for publication in a particular journal, according to the ethical and the established standards of practice, must pass through a peer-review process (2-7). The articles go through a peer-review process, without the authors’ names, and this is essentially a blind process. Common practice is to peer-review an article by two experts, prominent enough for scholarly careers in the field from which the article comes. Through years-long experience of the editor, of several journals, I think that a search for an appropriate peer-reviewer is the most complex part in the scope of responsibilities of the editor. Theoretically, everyone wants gladly to review particular article. The higher the impact factor of the journal is, this desire grows. In practice, every fourth petition for review of a certain work is accepted (8-12). Editors are faced with many dilemmas and primarily, through the numerous e-mails, they reach a certain reviewer, after a period, which sometimes last up to a year. Sometimes this review contains only two sentences, and the editor is forced to look for new potential reviewer as a decision on the work cannot be made, on the basis of two sentences. Each reviewer receives copy of the journal, for which he/she writes its opinion on the above-mentioned work.