Objective: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been prolonged, the pre-hospital screening test performed in hospitals has changed from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to rapid antigen test (RAT). RAT has lower sensitivity than PCR, but a lower cost and shorter test time. In the hospital where this study was conducted, the preadmission COVID-19 test was changed from PCR to RAT on February 24, 2023. This study compared the efficacy of PCR and RAT as the pre-admission COVID-19 test. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study comparing two periods, 90 days from November 25, 2022 to February 23, 2023, and 90 days from February 28, 2023 to May 29, 2023. Patients hospitalized from the emergency medical center during these two periods were included. Binomial logistic regression was used to compare the emergency department length of stay (ED LOS) between the two groups (PCR vs. RAT). Logistic regression was used to compare the mortality. Results: Four thousand seven hundred and thirty-eight patients were admitted through the emergency room: 2,202 patients in the PCR group and 2,443 patients in the RAT group. No statistically significant differences in the characteristics and severity were observed between the two groups. The mean ED LOS of PCR 5.07 hours (interquartile range, 3.80-6.75) was longer than RAT 3.65 hours (interquartile range, 2.83-4.68) (P<0.001). Mortality was higher in PCR 8.9% than RAT 6.6% (P=0.005). Conclusion The study showed that ED LOS and mortality were reduced when using RAT rather than PCR as a preadmission COVID-19 test.

The prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has been gradually increasing in recent years and has become a major health problem. Childhood obesity can readily progress to adult obesity. It is associated with obesity-related comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and the risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It is important to make an accurate assessment of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents with consideration of growth and development. Childhood obesity can then be prevented and treated using an appropriate treatment goal and safe and effective treatment strategies. This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines for obesity in children and adolescents that are included in the 8th edition of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity of the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity.

The prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has been gradually increasing in recent years and has become a major health problem. Childhood obesity can readily progress to adult obesity. It is associated with obesity-related comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and the risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It is important to make an accurate assessment of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents with consideration of growth and development. Childhood obesity can then be prevented and treated using an appropriate treatment goal and safe and effective treatment strategies. This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines for obesity in children and adolescents that are included in the 8th edition of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity of the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity.

The prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has been gradually increasing in recent years and has become a major health problem. Childhood obesity can readily progress to adult obesity. It is associated with obesity-related comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and the risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It is important to make an accurate assessment of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents with consideration of growth and development. Childhood obesity can then be prevented and treated using an appropriate treatment goal and safe and effective treatment strategies. This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines for obesity in children and adolescents that are included in the 8th edition of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity of the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity.

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.

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: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is currently ravaging the world and is a major threat to public health. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk of acquiring and transmitting COVID-19. Hence, HCWs are also experiencing emotional and behavioral changes. The purpose of this study was to compare emotional changes and stress between occupations and to investigate the impact of emotions of HCWs during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: An anonymous, self-administered, previously validated questionnaire was given to HCWs at a hospital dedicated to infectious diseases in Korea during the COVID-19 outbreak. The participants were asked to evaluate stress factors, depressive moods, trauma, reasons for continuing to work, things that helped them work, coping strategies to reduce stress, motivators that could help them work during future outbreaks, and what they would like to do after the outbreak was over. Results: The total number of participants was 400. The average age of participants was 34.69±9.44. Stress and depressive moods showed variations in the job-to-job comparisons. Ethical duty and the professionalism of the HCWs pushed them to continue with their jobs. The news of a decline in the number of patients was helpful to HCWs. The implementation of personal hygiene programs helped in reducing stress. The provision of adequate personal protective equipment was a factor that would encourage them to work during any future outbreak. The participants wanted to go on a trip after the outbreak was over. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 outbreak had a significant emotional impact on HCWs. The concerns of HCWs may affect their work efficiency in an outbreak and should be addressed by incorporating appropriate management strategies while planning to combat an outbreak.

Objective: Predictive tools such as the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) and Pre-Rockall Score (PRS) have been used to foresee risks for gastrointestinal patients. This study was undertaken to determine the usefulness of the various available predictive tools in a vulnerable population. Methods: Data of patients with vulnerable upper gastrointestinal bleeding, who visited the emergency room from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, were retrospectively examined. The GBS and PRS values were determined for all patients. Predictions of therapeutic endoscopy were evaluated with the area under curve (AUC) in the receiver operatory characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: A total of 152 patients were included in the study, 46 of whom required therapeutic endoscopes. In the area below the ROC curve, higher GBS values were obtained as compared to PRS in predicting therapeutic endoscopy (AUC, 0.726; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.648-0.795 vs. 0.705; 95% CI, 0.626-0.776; P=0.689, respectively), transfusion (AUC, 0.861; 95% CI, 0.796-0.912 vs. 0.715; 95% CI, 0.637-0.786; P=0.001, respectively), and 30-day mortality (AUC, 0.698; 95% CI, 0.618-0.770 vs. 0.622; 95% CI, 0.540-0.699; P=0.351, respectively). Considering GBS 0, we determined with 100% sensitivity and 4.72% specificity that endoscopic treatment is redundant. Conclusion Compared to PRS, GBS excelled in predicting interventional treatment (endoscopy, transfusion) of vulnerable upper gastrointestinal patients, as well as the 30-day mortality. GBS is more useful in predicting low-risk patients that do not require treatment endoscopy, and is therefore a suitable procedure for outpatient care.

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is currently ravaging the world and is a major threat to public health. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk of acquiring and transmitting COVID-19. Hence, HCWs are also experiencing emotional and behavioral changes. The purpose of this study was to compare emotional changes and stress between occupations and to investigate the impact of emotions of HCWs during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: An anonymous, self-administered, previously validated questionnaire was given to HCWs at a hospital dedicated to infectious diseases in Korea during the COVID-19 outbreak. The participants were asked to evaluate stress factors, depressive moods, trauma, reasons for continuing to work, things that helped them work, coping strategies to reduce stress, motivators that could help them work during future outbreaks, and what they would like to do after the outbreak was over. Results: The total number of participants was 400. The average age of participants was 34.69±9.44. Stress and depressive moods showed variations in the job-to-job comparisons. Ethical duty and the professionalism of the HCWs pushed them to continue with their jobs. The news of a decline in the number of patients was helpful to HCWs. The implementation of personal hygiene programs helped in reducing stress. The provision of adequate personal protective equipment was a factor that would encourage them to work during any future outbreak. The participants wanted to go on a trip after the outbreak was over. Conclusion Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 outbreak had a significant emotional impact on HCWs. The concerns of HCWs may affect their work efficiency in an outbreak and should be addressed by incorporating appropriate management strategies while planning to combat an outbreak.

Objective: Predictive tools such as the Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) and Pre-Rockall Score (PRS) have been used to foresee risks for gastrointestinal patients. This study was undertaken to determine the usefulness of the various available predictive tools in a vulnerable population. Methods: Data of patients with vulnerable upper gastrointestinal bleeding, who visited the emergency room from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, were retrospectively examined. The GBS and PRS values were determined for all patients. Predictions of therapeutic endoscopy were evaluated with the area under curve (AUC) in the receiver operatory characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: A total of 152 patients were included in the study, 46 of whom required therapeutic endoscopes. In the area below the ROC curve, higher GBS values were obtained as compared to PRS in predicting therapeutic endoscopy (AUC, 0.726; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.648-0.795 vs. 0.705; 95% CI, 0.626-0.776; P=0.689, respectively), transfusion (AUC, 0.861; 95% CI, 0.796-0.912 vs. 0.715; 95% CI, 0.637-0.786; P=0.001, respectively), and 30-day mortality (AUC, 0.698; 95% CI, 0.618-0.770 vs. 0.622; 95% CI, 0.540-0.699; P=0.351, respectively). Considering GBS 0, we determined with 100% sensitivity and 4.72% specificity that endoscopic treatment is redundant. Conclusion Compared to PRS, GBS excelled in predicting interventional treatment (endoscopy, transfusion) of vulnerable upper gastrointestinal patients, as well as the 30-day mortality. GBS is more useful in predicting low-risk patients that do not require treatment endoscopy, and is therefore a suitable procedure for outpatient care.