Objective: Early identification of COVID-19 in patients is important to prevent significant worsening of the disease. This study was undertaken to verify whether MEWS (Modified Early Warning Score), NEWS(National Early Warning Score), ROX index, and CURB-65, which are early diagnostic tools for severe respiratory diseases, could be applied to patients visiting the emergency room for COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study included patients who visited an emergency medical center from September 1 to October 31, 2020, and from January 1 to February 28, 2021. Based on the vital signs and blood tests during the emergency room visit, severity evaluation tools and early diagnostic tools for severe cases were used and compared according to their area under the curve (AUC) values. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, while the secondary outcomes were intensive care unit admission rate and the need for mechanical ventilation based on these four tools (MEWS, NEWS, ROX index, and CURB-65). Results: A total of 667 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was determined between the non-survivor group and survivor group in the MEWS values (P=0.13), but statistically significant differences were observed for NEWS (5 vs. 1, P<0.05), CURB-65 (2 vs. 1, P<0.05), and ROX index (16.61 vs. 23.1, P<0.01). The AUC value of NEWS for death prediction indicated a good predictive power at 0.80, while that of MEWS showed a low predictive power at 0.57, which was statistically significant. Moreover, the AUC values of CURB-65 and ROX index did not differ significantly from values obtained for NEWS. Conclusion As early diagnostic tools for predicting death in COVID-19 patients, NEWS, ROX index, and CURB-65 showed excellent discrimination ability, whereas MEWS showed statistically and significantly lower discrimination ability.

Objective: This study examined the characteristics of patients visiting the emergency department (ED) with fever after the chronification of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This retrospective observational study analyzed the medical records of patients who visited the ED with fever from May 1 to October 31, 2021, and the corresponding period in 2019. This study was conducted at a single center in Seoul, Korea. Results: There was no statistical difference in the comorbidities of the patients of the two groups: the AC (after the COVID-19 pandemic) group and the BC (before the COVID-19 pandemic) group. As for the level of consciousness at the time of ED arrival, there was a significantly larger decrease in consciousness (verbal response or less) in the AC group than in the BC group (P=0.002). In the case of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the proportion was higher in the AC group in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups (P=0.003). The median time from symptom onset to ED arrival was 15.7 hours in the BC group and 13.8 hours in the AC group, and there was no significant difference (P=0.137). When leaving the ED, the AC group had a higher admission rate to the ward and intensive care unit than the BC group. There was no statistical difference in the in-hospital mortality between the two groups (2.9% and 2.4%, respectively; P=0.62). Conclusion Patients who visited the emergency room with fever after one year of the COVID-19 pandemic showed a similar time from symptom onset to ED arrival compared to patients who visited before the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality among these patients compared to those with fever before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Blastocystis is a genus of unicellular heterokont parasites belonging to a group of organisms known as Stramenopiles, which includes algae, diatoms, and water molds. Blastocystis includes several species that habitat in the gastrointestinal tracts of organisms as diverse as humans, farm animals, birds, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and cockroaches. It is important to public health and distributed globally, but its prevalence in dogs in Korea has not been reported to date. Here, we collected 787 canine fecal samples and assessed Blastocystis infection by age, sex, region, season, and diarrhea symptoms. We determined Blastocystis subtypes using phylogenetic analyses based on 18S rRNA gene sequences. We identified, 10 Blastocystis positive samples (1.3%). A higher proportion of infected dogs was asymptomatic; however, infection rates did not significantly differ according to region, age, sex, and season. Phylogenetic analysis showed that the Blastocystis sp. identified belonged to 4 subtypes (STs), ST1, ST5, ST10, and ST14, thus revealed the genetic diversity of Blastocystis sp. in dogs Korean. This is first report on the presence of Blastocystis sp. in dogs Korean. This study revealed a lower infection rate than expected and differed from previous studies in STs. Further studies are warranted to observe the national infection status of Blastocystis in dogs and the genetic characteristics of this genus.

Objective: To compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies. Results: Twenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68–0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73–0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Conclusion Use of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

Objective: To compare the accuracy for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting between the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), defined as DBT alone or combined DBT and digital mammography (DM), and the use of DM alone through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Library and five Korean local databases were searched for articles published until March 25, 2020. We selected studies that reported diagnostic accuracy in women who were recalled after screening or symptomatic. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. A bivariate random effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. We compared the diagnostic accuracy between DBT and DM alone using meta-regression and subgroup analyses by modality of intervention, country, existence of calcifications, breast density, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category threshold, study design, protocol for participant sampling, sample size, reason for diagnostic examination, and number of readers who interpreted the studies. Results: Twenty studies (n = 44513) that compared DBT and DM alone were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.94), respectively, for DBT, which were higher than 0.76 (95% CI 0.68–0.83) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73–0.89), respectively, for DM alone (p < 0.001). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.95 (95% CI 0.93–0.97) for DBT and 0.86 (95% CI 0.82–0.88) for DM alone. The higher sensitivity and specificity of DBT than DM alone were consistently noted in most subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Conclusion Use of DBT was more accurate than DM alone for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Women with clinical symptoms or abnormal screening findings could be more effectively evaluated for breast cancer using DBT, which has a superior diagnostic performance compared to DM alone.

Background/Aims: Delayed diagnosis and treatment of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) are major concerns for TB control. We evaluated characteristics of patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB who received a delayed diagnosis and identified risk factors that may have contributed to this delay. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients with smear-negative culture-positive pulmonary TB treated at a tertiary care hospital in South Korea between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients who initiated anti-TB treatment after positive cultures were included in the missed TB group, and those who initiated empirical treatment before positive cultures were included in the control group. Results: Of 220 patients included, 117 (53.2%) and 103 (46.8%) were in the missed TB and control groups, respectively. Patients in the missed TB group were older (p = 0.001) and had a higher mean body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.019). Comorbidities (66.9% vs. 46.6%, p = 0.003) and immunocompromised patients (33.1% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.035) were more common in the missed TB group than in the control group. Old age (odds ratio [OR], 1.030; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.012 to 1.048; p = 0.001), high BMI (OR, 1.114; 95% CI, 1.004 to 1.237; p = 0.042), and negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results (OR, 9.551; 95% CI, 4.925 to 18.521; p < 0.001) were associated with delayed diagnosis. Conclusions In more than half of patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB, the diagnosis was delayed. Patients with delayed TB diagnosis were older, had higher BMI, and negative PCR results.

Nonautoimmune hyperthyroidism is a very rare cause of congenital hyperthyroidism that is usually caused by an activating mutation in the thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR) gene. In this report, we describe a case of nonautoimmune hyperthyroidism in a patient with TSHR mutation. Our patient was the younger of a set of twins born at 36 weeks and 6 days of gestation. The patient was noted to be more irritable than the older twin at 80 days of age, and the mother was taking methimazole for Graves’ disease that had been diagnosed 12 years prior. Therefore, a thyroid function test was conducted for the patient. The results revealed subclinical hyperthyroidism, and tests of antithyroglobulin antibody, antithyroid peroxidase antibody, and anti-thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) receptor antibody were all negative. During follow-up, at around 4 months of age, free T4 increased to 2.89 ng/dL, and TSH was still low at 0.01 μIU/mL; therefore, 3 mg/day of methimazole was initiated. Whole-exome sequencing showed a heterozygous variant of c.1800C>T (p.Ala627Val) in the TSHR gene. Testing in the family confirmed an identical variant in the patient's mother, leading to diagnosis of familial nonautoimmune hyperthyroidism inherited in an autosomal dominant pattern. This is the second report of A627V confirmed as a germline variant.

The definition of the high-risk group for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was changed from the criteria composed of five historic/demographic factors (old criteria) to the criteria consisting of 11 factors (new criteria) in 2017. To compare the predictive performances between these two sets of criteria.