Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate burnout and its associated factors among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) frontline healthcare workers. Methods: We analyzed the nationwide burnout evaluation scale data collected from 774 COVID-19 frontline healthcare workers in South Korea from July 1 to 14, 2021. Along with demographic variables and work-related information, the Maslach Burnout Inventory–General Survey and the list of stress factors were used to assess burnout and its associated stressors. Results: The study participants were predominantly female (86.2%) and the majority were nurses (78.8%). Among them, 53.0% felt emotionally exhausted, 34.5% were cynical, and 45.5% experienced decreased professional efficacy. The most common stressors were “insufficient rewards” (85.0%) and “excessive workload” (72.5%). Factors such as excessive workload, interpersonal relationships at work, and stress from insufficient rewards were correlated with higher levels of exhaustion and increased cynicism. Insufficient rewards and stress about family infection were associated with increased professional efficacy. Conclusion Stress related to the work environment, rather than that from potential infection, was associated with exhaustion and cynicism in the COVID-19 frontline healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) is often accompanied by Parkinson's disease (PD) and may predict the development of mild cognitive impairment or dementia, longitudinal brain perfusion changes in PD patients with SCI remain to be elucidated. The current prospective study examined cerebral perfusion changes in PD patients with SCI using technetium-99m hexamethylpropylene amine oxime single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS: Among 53 PD patients at baseline, 30 patients were classified into the PD with SCI group and 23 patients were assigned to the PD without SCI group. The mean follow-up interval was 2.3±0.9 years. The Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating, and Global Deterioration Scale were used to assess impairments in cognitive function. Brain SPECT images were acquired at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Significant differences between the two groups were not found for demographic variables, PD severity, or cognitive function at either baseline or follow-up. At baseline, the PD with SCI group showed decreased perfusion in the left angular gyrus compared to the PD without SCI group. Longitudinal analysis revealed widespread perfusion reductions primarily in the bilateral temporo-parieto-occipital areas and cerebellum in the PD with SCI group. Relative to the PD without SCI group, an excessive decrease of perfusion was found in the left middle frontal gyrus of the PD with SCI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that perfusion deficits in the middle frontal area may play an important role in the pathophysiology of SCI in PD.
Brain ; Cerebellum ; Cognition ; Cognition Disorders* ; Dementia ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Mild Cognitive Impairment ; Parietal Lobe ; Parkinson Disease* ; Perfusion* ; Prospective Studies ; Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Nicergoline is an ergoline derivative that is used to treat cognitive deficits in cerebrovascular disease and various forms of dementia. Although therapeutic effects of nicergoline have been established, little is known about its effects on cerebral perfusion in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim of this study was to examine the role of nicergoline in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) of AD patients using technetium-99m hexa-methyl-propylene-amine-oxime single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). METHODS: Sixteen patients with early AD underwent a comprehensive clinical assessment including cognitive testing and SPECT scans before and after nicergoline treatment. Nicergoline (30 mg twice daily) was administered for an average duration of 1.5 years. Clinical and cognitive functioning was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), CDR-Sum of Boxes, Global Deterioration Scale, Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and Geriatric Depression Scale. RESULTS: Nicergoline treatment induced changes in the severity of dementia, cognitive function, activities of daily living, and depressive symptoms, which were not statistically significant. During the follow-up, the patients showed significant increases in their relative rCBF in the superior frontal gyrus, precentral gyrus, and postcentral gyrus. CONCLUSIONS: Nicergoline treatment improves perfusion of the frontal and parietal regions in early AD patients. It is possible that the increased perfusion in the superior frontal gyrus may be related to the mechanisms that delay or prevent progressive deterioration of cognitive functions in AD.
Activities of Daily Living ; Alzheimer Disease* ; Cerebrovascular Circulation ; Cerebrovascular Disorders ; Cognition ; Cognition Disorders ; Dementia ; Depression ; Ergolines ; Follow-Up Studies ; Frontal Lobe ; Humans ; Nicergoline* ; Parietal Lobe ; Perfusion* ; Pilot Projects* ; Prefrontal Cortex ; Somatosensory Cortex ; Therapeutic Uses ; Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic neuropathic pain disorder. Pain catastrophizing, characterized by magnification, rumination, and helplessness, increases perceived pain intensity and mental distress in CRPS patients. As functional connectivity patterns in CRPS remain largely unknown, we aimed to investigate functional connectivity alterations in CRPS patients and their association with pain catastrophizing using a whole-brain analysis approach. Twenty-one patients with CRPS and 49 healthy controls were included in the study for clinical assessment and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging. Between-group differences in whole-brain functional connectivity were examined through a Network-based Statistics analysis. Associations between altered functional connectivity and the extent of pain catastrophizing were also assessed in CRPS patients. Relative to healthy controls, CRPS patients showed higher levels of functional connectivity in the bilateral somatosensory subnetworks (components 1~2), but lower functional connectivity within the prefronto-posterior cingulate (component 3), prefrontal (component 4), prefronto-parietal (component 5), and thalamo-anterior cingulate (component 6) subnetworks (p<0.05, family-wise error corrected). Higher levels of functional connectivity in components 1~2 (β=0.45, p=0.04) and lower levels of functional connectivity in components 3~6 (β=-0.49, p=0.047) were significantly correlated with higher levels of pain catastrophizing in CRPS patients. Higher functional connectivity in the somatosensory subnetworks implicating exaggerated pain perception and lower functional connectivity in the prefronto-parieto-cingulo-thalamic subnetworks indicating impaired cognitive-affective pain processing may underlie pain catastrophizing in CRPS.

The incidence of neurosyphilis has declined since effective penicillin therapy against Treponema pallidum was introduced. However, the diagnosis of neurosyphilis early in the disease course is very important in order to select appropriate antibiotic therapy. We report brain MRI, SPECT with Tc-99m ECD, and PET with F-18 FDG findings before antibiotic therapy in a neurosyphilis patient with neurological symptoms. The cerebral cortices showed hypoperfusion with a patchy distribution on SPECT and foci with high signal intensity on MRI, suggesting ischemia. Brain PET showed areas with hypometabolism in the temporoparietal lobes bilaterally.

Objectives: This study compared the scientific publication speeds of Korean medical journals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. Methods: We analyzed 2,064 papers from 43 international Korean medical journals, selecting 12 papers annually from 2019 to 2022. We assessed publication speed indicators, including the time from submission to revision and from submission to publication. Additionally, we examined variations in publication speed based on journal and paper characteristics, including whether the studies were related to COVID-19. Results: Among the 43 journals analyzed, 39.5% disclosed the peer review duration from submission to the first decision, and 11.6% reported their acceptance rates. The average time from submission to acceptance was 127.0 days in 2019, 126.1 days in 2020, 124.6 days in 2021, and 126.4 days in 2022. For COVID-19-related studies, the average time from submission to revision was 61.4 days, compared to 105.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies; from submission to acceptance, it was 87.4 days for COVID-19-related studies and 127.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies. All indicators for COVID-19-related studies showed shorter durations than those for non-COVID-19 studies, and the proportion of studies accepted within 30 or 60 days was significantly higher for COVID-19-related studies. Conclusions This study investigated the publication speed of Korean international medical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic influenced journals’ review and publication processes, potentially impacting the quality of academic papers. These findings provide insights into publication speeds during the COVID-19 era, suggesting that journals should focus on maintaining the integrity of their publication and review processes.

Objectives: This study compared the scientific publication speeds of Korean medical journals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. Methods: We analyzed 2,064 papers from 43 international Korean medical journals, selecting 12 papers annually from 2019 to 2022. We assessed publication speed indicators, including the time from submission to revision and from submission to publication. Additionally, we examined variations in publication speed based on journal and paper characteristics, including whether the studies were related to COVID-19. Results: Among the 43 journals analyzed, 39.5% disclosed the peer review duration from submission to the first decision, and 11.6% reported their acceptance rates. The average time from submission to acceptance was 127.0 days in 2019, 126.1 days in 2020, 124.6 days in 2021, and 126.4 days in 2022. For COVID-19-related studies, the average time from submission to revision was 61.4 days, compared to 105.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies; from submission to acceptance, it was 87.4 days for COVID-19-related studies and 127.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies. All indicators for COVID-19-related studies showed shorter durations than those for non-COVID-19 studies, and the proportion of studies accepted within 30 or 60 days was significantly higher for COVID-19-related studies. Conclusions This study investigated the publication speed of Korean international medical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic influenced journals’ review and publication processes, potentially impacting the quality of academic papers. These findings provide insights into publication speeds during the COVID-19 era, suggesting that journals should focus on maintaining the integrity of their publication and review processes.

Objectives: This study compared the scientific publication speeds of Korean medical journals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. Methods: We analyzed 2,064 papers from 43 international Korean medical journals, selecting 12 papers annually from 2019 to 2022. We assessed publication speed indicators, including the time from submission to revision and from submission to publication. Additionally, we examined variations in publication speed based on journal and paper characteristics, including whether the studies were related to COVID-19. Results: Among the 43 journals analyzed, 39.5% disclosed the peer review duration from submission to the first decision, and 11.6% reported their acceptance rates. The average time from submission to acceptance was 127.0 days in 2019, 126.1 days in 2020, 124.6 days in 2021, and 126.4 days in 2022. For COVID-19-related studies, the average time from submission to revision was 61.4 days, compared to 105.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies; from submission to acceptance, it was 87.4 days for COVID-19-related studies and 127.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies. All indicators for COVID-19-related studies showed shorter durations than those for non-COVID-19 studies, and the proportion of studies accepted within 30 or 60 days was significantly higher for COVID-19-related studies. Conclusions This study investigated the publication speed of Korean international medical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic influenced journals’ review and publication processes, potentially impacting the quality of academic papers. These findings provide insights into publication speeds during the COVID-19 era, suggesting that journals should focus on maintaining the integrity of their publication and review processes.

Objectives: This study compared the scientific publication speeds of Korean medical journals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era. Methods: We analyzed 2,064 papers from 43 international Korean medical journals, selecting 12 papers annually from 2019 to 2022. We assessed publication speed indicators, including the time from submission to revision and from submission to publication. Additionally, we examined variations in publication speed based on journal and paper characteristics, including whether the studies were related to COVID-19. Results: Among the 43 journals analyzed, 39.5% disclosed the peer review duration from submission to the first decision, and 11.6% reported their acceptance rates. The average time from submission to acceptance was 127.0 days in 2019, 126.1 days in 2020, 124.6 days in 2021, and 126.4 days in 2022. For COVID-19-related studies, the average time from submission to revision was 61.4 days, compared to 105.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies; from submission to acceptance, it was 87.4 days for COVID-19-related studies and 127.1 days for non-COVID-19 studies. All indicators for COVID-19-related studies showed shorter durations than those for non-COVID-19 studies, and the proportion of studies accepted within 30 or 60 days was significantly higher for COVID-19-related studies. Conclusions This study investigated the publication speed of Korean international medical journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic influenced journals’ review and publication processes, potentially impacting the quality of academic papers. These findings provide insights into publication speeds during the COVID-19 era, suggesting that journals should focus on maintaining the integrity of their publication and review processes.