South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.

South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.