Background: Recent studies raise concerns that arthroscopic meniscectomy (AM) for degenerative tear may be detrimental to the maintenance of the joint structure. This study was performed to examine the rate of total knee replacement (TKR) among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent AM for meniscal tears and compare this rate with those who did not. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Health Insurance Database of South Korea. Among knee OA patients aged 50–79, those who were treated with AM due to meniscal damage from 2007 to 2009 were selected as the AM group while those not treated with AM despite the presence of meniscal damage were selected as control group. Both were matched based on a propensity score and followed-up until the earliest occurrence of:TKR, death, or 10 years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the outcome. Results: A total of 36,974 patients were included in AM groups and non-AM group after 1:1 matching. TKR occurred in 9.62% and 7.64% in AM and non-AM groups with the average duration after meniscectomy of 5.88 ± 2.77 and 5.50 ± 2.94 years, respectively. After adjustment for baseline confounders, the TKR rate in the AM group was calculated to be 25% higher than that in the non-AM group (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.16–1.34). The mortality rate was 5.20%, which did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusion OA patients who underwent AM for the meniscal injury had higher incidence of TKR up to 10 years of follow-up than the non-operated group. The greater TKR utilization observed in patients undergoing AM merits caution when treating OA patients with meniscal injury.

Background: Meniscal tears are commonly observed in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), however, clinical significance of such lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging is in many cases unclear. This study aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) compared with non-operative care in patients with knee OA.Method: We used existing systematic reviews with updates of latest studies. Three randomized controlled studies were selected, where two studies compared the effects of APM plus physical therapy (PT) with PT alone and one compared APM alone and PT alone. While 1 study exclusively included OA patients, 2 studies included 21.1 and 12% of patients with no radiographic OA. Patients with knee locking were unanimously excluded. Results: Upon comparison of APM plus PT and PT alone, there was no significant difference observed in knee function, physical activity, or adverse events. Knee pain was observed to be significantly lower in the APM plus PT group at 6 months, but there was no difference between the two groups at 12 and 24 months. With respect to the comparison between APM alone and PT alone, PT was non-inferior based on the criteria for knee function during 24 months; however, knee pain was significantly reduced in the APM alone group. Conclusions Our study showed that knee pain was significantly improved in the APM group compared to non-operative care group at 6 months and over 24 months. Our result was based on only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) revealing a significant knowledge gap, hence demanding more high-quality RCTs in OA patients.

Background/Aims: The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV. Results: A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77–1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59–0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events. Conclusions In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

Background/Aims: With increased life expectancy, the management of elderly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients became a crucial issue, yet it is still challenging due to comorbidities and high surgical risks. While surgical resection is considered as primary treatment for eligible HCC patients, systematic evidence on its outcomes in elderly patients remains scarce. In this review, we aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety outcomes of surgical resection in elderly HCC patients. Methods: The studies included in this meta-analysis were selected from Ovid-MEDLINE, OvidEmbase, CENTRAL, KoreaMed, KMbase, and KISS databases following a predefined protocol.Efficacy outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival, while the safety outcomes included postoperative mortality and complications. Results: Patients in the elderly group (≥65 years) who underwent surgery exhibited non-inferior overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.74) and diseasefree survival (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.08) compared to the non-elderly group. Overall postop-erative mortality exhibited no statistical difference (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.31), but 30-day, 90-day, and in-hospital mortality were higher in the elderly group. The incidence of overall complications was higher in the elderly group (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.69). Sensitivity analysis for the super elderly group (≥80 years) showed significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to the non-super elderly group (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.16 to 5.45). Conclusions The efficacy outcome of surgical resection in the elderly HCC patients was not worse than that in the non-elderly HCC patients, while in-hospital mortality and complications rates were higher. Therefore, surgical resection should be purposefully considered in the elderly population, with careful candidate selection.

This systematic review evaluated psychiatric adverse events (AEs) following vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We included studies that reported or investigated psychiatric AEs in individuals who had received an approved COVID-19 vaccine in the Republic of Korea. Systematic electronic searches of Ovid-Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and KoreaMed databases were conducted on March 22, 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies 2.0. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023449422). Of the 301 articles initially selected, 7 were included in the final analysis. All studies reported on sleep disturbances, and 2 highlighted anxiety-related AEs. Sleep disorders like insomnia and narcolepsy were the most prevalent AEs, while depression was not reported. Our review suggests that these AEs may have been influenced by biological mechanisms as well as the broader psychosocial context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although this study had limitations, such as a primary focus on the BNT162b2 vaccine and an observational study design, it offered a systematic, multi-vaccine analysis that fills a critical gap in the existing literature. This review underscores the need for continued surveillance of psychiatric AEs and guides future research to investigate underlying mechanisms, identify risk factors, and inform clinical management.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Background: In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. Methods: The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. Results: An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3–4 months. Conclusion We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media.Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.