Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Objective:To explore the equity and driving path of primary healthcare human resource allocation across 31 provinces in China,providing references for optimizing such allocations.Methods:Using data from the 2022 primary healthcare human resources in 31 provinces in China,the Health Resource Density Index(HRDI)was used to measure the equity of primary healthcare human resource allocation.The fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis(fsQCA)was applied to construct configurational pathways influencing on allocation patterns.Results:In 2022,the HRDI for primary healthcare human resources in China was 2.349 0 in the East,1.198 6 in the Central region,and 0.775 2 in the West.Configurational analysis revealed three paths that promote high equity:the internal-external balance-driven model(H1),the government-led model(H2),and the economic-demand combined model(H3),with overall consistency and coverage of 0.955 and 0.794,respectively.Seven paths lead to low equity:internal-external constraint models(L1,L2),economic constraint models(L3),and demand constraint models(L4,L5,L6,L7),with overall consistency and coverage of 0.967 and 0.795,respectively.Conclusions:Significant regional disparities exist in the equity of primary healthcare human resource allocation in China.Population density is a critical factor influencing allocation equity.The collaboration of various factors contributes to enhancing the equity of primary healthcare human resources distribution.Therefore,future efforts to enhance equity should focus on promoting inter-regional mobility and resource sharing,while precisely addressing regional shortcomings to achieve high equity in primary healthcare human resource allocation.

Objective:To explore the equity and driving path of primary healthcare human resource allocation across 31 provinces in China,providing references for optimizing such allocations.Methods:Using data from the 2022 primary healthcare human resources in 31 provinces in China,the Health Resource Density Index(HRDI)was used to measure the equity of primary healthcare human resource allocation.The fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis(fsQCA)was applied to construct configurational pathways influencing on allocation patterns.Results:In 2022,the HRDI for primary healthcare human resources in China was 2.349 0 in the East,1.198 6 in the Central region,and 0.775 2 in the West.Configurational analysis revealed three paths that promote high equity:the internal-external balance-driven model(H1),the government-led model(H2),and the economic-demand combined model(H3),with overall consistency and coverage of 0.955 and 0.794,respectively.Seven paths lead to low equity:internal-external constraint models(L1,L2),economic constraint models(L3),and demand constraint models(L4,L5,L6,L7),with overall consistency and coverage of 0.967 and 0.795,respectively.Conclusions:Significant regional disparities exist in the equity of primary healthcare human resource allocation in China.Population density is a critical factor influencing allocation equity.The collaboration of various factors contributes to enhancing the equity of primary healthcare human resources distribution.Therefore,future efforts to enhance equity should focus on promoting inter-regional mobility and resource sharing,while precisely addressing regional shortcomings to achieve high equity in primary healthcare human resource allocation.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic viral pathogen in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.The Korean guideline for the prevention of CMV infection in SOT recipients was developed jointly by the Korean Society for Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society of Transplantation. CMV serostatus of both donors and recipients should be screened before transplantation to best assess the risk of CMV infection after SOT. Seronegative recipients receiving organs from seropositive donors face the highest risk, followed by seropositive recipients. Either antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy can be used to prevent CMV infection. While both strategies have been demonstrated to prevent CMV infection post-transplant, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. CMV serostatus, transplant organ, other risk factors, and practical issues should be considered for the selection of preventive measures. There is no universal viral load threshold to guide treatment in preemptive therapy. Each institution should define and validate its own threshold.Valganciclovir is the favored agent for both prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. The evaluation of CMV-specific cellmediated immunity and the monitoring of viral load kinetics are gaining interest, but there was insufficient evidence to issue recommendations. Specific considerations on pediatric transplant recipients are included.

Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) account for a large proportion of healthcare-associated infections and have a significant impact on morbidity, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Adherence to the recommended infection prevention practices can effectively reduce the incidence of CAUTIs. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of CAUTIs and the efficacy of prevention programs across hospitals of various sizes. Methods: Intervention programs, including training, surveillance, and monitoring, were implemented. Data on the microorganisms responsible for CAUTIs, urinary catheter utilization ratio, rate of CAUTIs per 1,000 device days, and factors associated with the use of indwelling catheters were collected from 2017 to 2019. The incidence of CAUTIs and associated data were compared between university hospitals and small- and medium-sized hospitals. Results: Thirty-two hospitals participated in the study, including 21 university hospitals and 11 small- and medium-sized hospitals. The microorganisms responsible for CAUTIs and their resistance rates did not differ between the two groups. In the first quarter of 2018, the incidence rate was 2.05 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 1.44 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. After implementing interventions, the rate gradually decreased in the first quarter of 2019, with 1.18 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 0.79 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. However, by the end of the study, the infection rate increased to 1.74 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 1.80 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. Conclusion We implemented interventions to prevent CAUTIs and evaluated their outcomes. The incidence of these infections decreased in the initial phases of the intervention when adequate support and personnel were present. The rate of these infections may be reduced by implementing active interventions such as consistent monitoring and adherence to guidelines for preventing infections.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the difference in satisfaction and learning benefits between e-portfolios compared to paper portfolios during clinical practice in medical schools. Methods: Utilization of and satisfaction with e-portfolios among 40 third-year medical students in the medicine department of Ajou University School of Medicine was collected using an online survey in December 2020. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and an analysis of variance. Results: Students perceived that e-portfolios were highly beneficial for consistently documenting activities during clinical practice, when compared to paper-based portfolios (mean±standard deviation [SD]=2.60±1.22). However, the least rated aspect was that e-portfolios require less time than paper-based portfolios (mean±SD=1.80±1.14). Additionally, among the various clinical practice courses using e-portfolios, the highest satisfaction was observed with the fewest content items in the e-portfolio. Conclusion To maximize the potential benefits of e-portfolios, improvements in implementation and usability are essential. Additionally, for effective utilization of e-portfolios in clinical practice, it is necessary to clearly define students’ required competencies and ultimate goals, and structure content accordingly.

This study evaluated the clinical outcome of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) bacteremia and the clinical effectiveness of tetracyclines-based therapy. In a retrospective cohort study over 5 years period, 108 patients were included in the study. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 71.4%. Pitt’s bacteremia score (PBS) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22–1.42 per 1-point), colistin-single regimens (aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.69), and tetracyclines single/tetracyclines-colistin combination regimens (aHR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07–0.48) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Among patients with a PBS < 6, only tetracycline-containing regimens were associated with decreased mortality. Among patients receiving appropriate definite antimicrobials, the tetracyclines-colistin combination (7 of 7, 100%) tended to a higher 30-day survival rate compared to a tetracycline (7 of 12, 57.1%) or colistin single regimen (10 of 22, 41.6%, P = 0.073). Our findings suggest tetracyclines might be effective for treating CRAB infections when combined with colistin.