PURPOSE: To determine referring physicians 'general attitudes, preferred reporting types, and opinions on radiologic reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire was distributed to the 315 staff and residents of four university hospitals with 400 to 800 beds, and a total of 228 physicians responded. The questionnaire aimed to determine of the general attitude of referring physicians to radiologic reports, the type of report they preferred, and other opinions and suggestions. The responses elicited, as well as discrepancies among residents, staff, internist, and surgeons, were analyzed. RESULTS: Most referring physicians replied that they read an entire report regardless of its length, and the second majority read the conclusion first and then the remainder of the report only if clarification was required. With regard to report length, physicians answered that reports describing the findings of conventional radiography were often too short, while those dealing with MRI were verbose. The majority experienced occasional confusion when reading a report, the major cause being grammatical errors and incomprehensible sentence structure. When confused, most physicians consulted the radiologist; staff showed a greater inclination than residents to pursue this option. Most physicians preferred brief phrases or telegraphic-style sentences to a style which stressed completeness and detail, a preference which was statistically higher among residents than staff. Whereas physicians favored a brief radiologic report in cases of normal radiologic findings, conventional radiologic studies or no clinical findings, they wished to see a more detailed report in cases of abnormal radiologic findings, specific radiologic studies (special radiographs, US, CT, or MRI), or positive clinical findings. This need for more detail was expressed more frequently by internists than by surgeons. CONCLUSION: If implemented, the results of this study can be expected to enhance the quality and comprehensibility of radiologic reports, and may also lead to more efficient communication between radiologists and physicians.
Hospitals, University ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Radiography

OBJECTIVES: We estimated the population prevalence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including unreported infections, through a Korea Seroprevalence Study of Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Retention and Transmission (K-SEROSMART) in 258 communities throughout Korea. METHODS: In August 2022, a survey was conducted among 10,000 household members aged 5 years and older, in households selected through two stage probability random sampling. During face-to-face household interviews, participants self-reported their health status, COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination history, and general characteristics. Subsequently, participants visited a community health center or medical clinic for blood sampling. Blood samples were analyzed for the presence of antibodies to spike proteins (anti-S) and antibodies to nucleocapsid proteins (anti-N) SARS-CoV-2 proteins using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. To estimate the population prevalence, the PROC SURVEYMEANS statistical procedure was employed, with weighting to reflect demographic data from July 2022. RESULTS: In total, 9,945 individuals from 5,041 households were surveyed across 258 communities, representing all basic local governments in Korea. The overall population-adjusted prevalence rates of anti-S and anti-N were 97.6% and 57.1%, respectively. Since the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency has reported a cumulative incidence of confirmed cases of 37.8% through July 31, 2022, the proportion of unreported infections among all COVID-19 infection was suggested to be 33.9%. CONCLUSIONS The K-SEROSMART represents the first nationwide, community-based seroepidemiologic survey of COVID-19, confirming that most individuals possess antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and that a significant number of unreported cases existed. Furthermore, this study lays the foundation for a surveillance system to continuously monitor transmission at the community level and the response to COVID-19.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the bronchodilator efficacy and safety of tiotropium inhalation capsules (18microgram once daily) with a ipratropium metered dose inhaler (2 puffs of 20microgram q.i.d.) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHOD: After the initial screening assessment and a two-week run-in period, patients received either tiotropium 18microgram once daily or ipratropium 40microgram four times daily over a period of 4 weeks in a double blind, double dummy, parallel group study. The outcome measures were the lung function, the daily records of the peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), the patients' questionnaire, and the use of concomitant salbutamol. The forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured 5 minutes before inhalation, and 0.5, 1, 2 and 3 hours after inhaling the study drug on days 0, 14 and 28. RESULT: In 16 centers, 134 patients with a mean (SD) age of 66 (7) years and a predicted FEV1 of 42 (12)% were analyzed. The trough FEV1 response was significantly higher in the tiotropium group than in the ipratropium group after a four-week treatment period. The weekly mean morning PEFR of the tiotropium group was consistently higher than that of the ipratropium group during the 4-week treatment period with differences ranging from 12.52 to 13.88 l/min, which were statistically significant. Tiotropium was well tolerated by the COPD patients during the 4-week treatment period and had a similar safety profile to ipratropium. CONCLUSION: This study shows that tiotropium administrated once daily has a superior bronchodilator effect with a similar safety profile in treating COPD patients compared with ipratropium, inhaled four times daily.
Adult* ; Albuterol ; Bronchodilator Agents ; Capsules ; Forced Expiratory Volume ; Humans ; Inhalation ; Ipratropium* ; Lung ; Mass Screening ; Metered Dose Inhalers ; Outcome Assessment (Health Care) ; Peak Expiratory Flow Rate ; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive* ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Vital Capacity ; Tiotropium Bromide