OBJECTIVE To guide the clinical medication of gastric cancer， enhance patients’ survival rates， improve patients’ quality of life， and provide a reference for clinicians in making treatment decisions. METHODS The nominal group method was employed， wherein members of the expert group from the Department of Oncology at Chongqing University Cancer Hospital collaboratively discussed and established the outline for the preparation of the Expert Consensus on Drug Treatment of Gastric Cancer. The writing team of experts systematically searched， analyzed， and summarized the relevant content outlined， as well as formulated consensus statements based on the current situation in China， clinical needs， and research evidence. After multiple rounds of meetings and discussions， the experts from the Chemotherapy Group of the Chongqing Medical Oncology Branch and the Special Committee on Rare and Difficult Cancers of Chongqing Medical and Biotechnology Association revised the recommendation and ultimately reached the consensus content and recommendation level through voting. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS This consensus encompasses perioperative drug therapy for gastric cancer， first-line drug therapy for advanced metastatic gastric cancer， second-line drug therapy for advanced metastatic gastric cancer， third-line and subsequent drug therapies for advanced gastric cancer， and drug therapy for peritoneal metastasis of gastric cancer. The release of this consensus offers standardized management suggestions for the individualized medication of gastric cancer by medical institutions in China， which is of great significance for enhancing the clinical efficacy and medication safety associated with gastric cancer treatment.

The Korean Medical Association (KMA) operates two organizations dedicated to healthcare policy research: the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy, which was launched in 2002, and the KMA Policy Special Committee, which was launched in 2017 as an administrative subunit of the board of representatives. Some members of the KMA have criticized the coexistence of two organizations for policy development. They argue that it would be preferable to unify these organizations, pointing out that having duplicate organizations for policy development wastes financial resources, disperses professionals, and produces different opinions on policies, which could be a source of confusion in the policy activities of the KMA. The author was a director in charge of policy at the KMA in 2002, when the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy was founded, and has also been an active member of the KMA Policy Special Committee since its launch in 2017. Having been involved in both policy development organizations, the author suggests that unifying these two organizations would not be desirable for the medical profession. The Research Institute for Healthcare Policy and the KMA Policy Special Committee are similar in that they deal with healthcare policy, but their approaches are quite distinct. The former organization must thoroughly research healthcare policy from a theoretical perspective, while the latter approaches healthcare policy by advocating for the interests of the members of the KMA. For instance, if the two organizations simultaneously research the possibility of a global budget payment system, the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy should address both its advantages and disadvantages, while the KMA Policy Special Committee would instead organize a policy initiative opposing a global budget payment system by focusing on its disadvantage of restricting the autonomy of healthcare providers. However, if the former organization provides a theoretical base and the latter organization coordinates policy advocacy in the interest of members of the KMA, the two organizations will make a major contribution to improving the medical environment in a complementary manner. In 2018, the two organizations jointly held a workshop with the theme of “shared growth”in Cheonan, demonstrating their ongoing efforts to collaborate. The author suggests that instead of becoming enmeshed in controversies about whether it should continue to exist as a separate organization, the KMA Policy Special Committee should instead focus on becoming the KMA's center for healthcare policy advocacy as soon as possible.
Academies and Institutes ; Budgets ; Chungcheongnam-do ; Delivery of Health Care ; Education ; Health Personnel ; Health Policy ; Humans ; Policy Making ; Professionalism

The Korean Medical Association (KMA) operates two organizations dedicated to healthcare policy research: the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy, which was launched in 2002, and the KMA Policy Special Committee, which was launched in 2017 as an administrative subunit of the board of representatives. Some members of the KMA have criticized the coexistence of two organizations for policy development. They argue that it would be preferable to unify these organizations, pointing out that having duplicate organizations for policy development wastes financial resources, disperses professionals, and produces different opinions on policies, which could be a source of confusion in the policy activities of the KMA. The author was a director in charge of policy at the KMA in 2002, when the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy was founded, and has also been an active member of the KMA Policy Special Committee since its launch in 2017. Having been involved in both policy development organizations, the author suggests that unifying these two organizations would not be desirable for the medical profession. The Research Institute for Healthcare Policy and the KMA Policy Special Committee are similar in that they deal with healthcare policy, but their approaches are quite distinct. The former organization must thoroughly research healthcare policy from a theoretical perspective, while the latter approaches healthcare policy by advocating for the interests of the members of the KMA. For instance, if the two organizations simultaneously research the possibility of a global budget payment system, the Research Institute for Healthcare Policy should address both its advantages and disadvantages, while the KMA Policy Special Committee would instead organize a policy initiative opposing a global budget payment system by focusing on its disadvantage of restricting the autonomy of healthcare providers. However, if the former organization provides a theoretical base and the latter organization coordinates policy advocacy in the interest of members of the KMA, the two organizations will make a major contribution to improving the medical environment in a complementary manner. In 2018, the two organizations jointly held a workshop with the theme of “shared growth”in Cheonan, demonstrating their ongoing efforts to collaborate. The author suggests that instead of becoming enmeshed in controversies about whether it should continue to exist as a separate organization, the KMA Policy Special Committee should instead focus on becoming the KMA's center for healthcare policy advocacy as soon as possible.

Chronic pelvic pain caused by pelvic venous disorder(PeVD)is a common condition in women.However,clinical physicians'cognition of this disease is not yet comprehensive,so PeVD is easy to be misdiagnosed,thus affecting its treatment.With the development of interventional radiology,the venography and sclerotic agent embolization therapy have gradually become the standard mode for the diagnosis and treatment of this disorder.This consensus focuses on the following aspects:selection of indications,selection of technical methods,intraoperative manipulation,treatment of corresponding complications,gathering the views of domestic multidisciplinary experts engaged in interventional radiology,vascular surgery and medical imaging,clinical management methods,systematical elaboration of the classification and diagnosis of PeVD,and experience in sclerotic agent embolization therapy,aiming to improve the clinical physicians'cognition of PeVD and to promote the standardization of its clinical treatment.

With the upsurge of artificial intelligence(AI)technology in the medical field, its application in ophthalmology has become a cutting-edge research field. Notably, machine learning techniques have shown remarkable achievements in diagnosing, intervening, and predicting ophthalmic diseases. To meet the requirements of clinical research and fit the actual progress of clinical diagnosis and treatment of ophthalmic AI, the Ophthalmic Imaging and Intelligent Medicine Branch and the Intelligent Medicine Special Committee of Chinese Medicine Education Association organized experts to integrate recent evaluation reports of clinical AI research at home and abroad and formed a guideline on clinical research evaluation of AI in ophthalmology after several rounds of discussion and modification. The main content includes the background and method of developing this guideline, introduction to international guidelines on the clinical research evaluation of AI, and the evaluation methods of ophthalmic AI models. This guideline introduces general evaluation methods of clinical ophthalmic AI research, evaluation methods of clinical AI models, and common indices and formulae for clinical AI model evaluation in detail, and amply elaborates the evaluation method of clinical ophthalmic AI trials. This guideline aims to provide guidance and norms for clinical researchers of ophthalmic AI, promote the development of regularization and standardization, and further improve the overall level of clinical ophthalmic AI research evaluations.