Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: The study investigated whether incorporating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alongside ultrasonography (US) in the preoperative evaluation is associated with differing survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients in a matched analysis. Additionally, clinicopathological prognostic factors were analyzed. Methods: Between January 2005 and December 2020, 93 male and 28,191 female patients who underwent breast surgery were screened. Exact matching analysis was conducted for age, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. The clinicopathological characteristics and preoperative imaging methods of the matched cohorts were reviewed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: A total of 328 breast cancer patients (61 men and 267 women) were included in the matched analysis. Male patients had worse DFS (10-year DFS, 70.6% vs. 89.2%; P=0.001) and OS (10-year OS, 64.4% vs. 96.3%; P<0.001) than female patients. The pathologic index cancer size (hazard ratio [HR], 2.013; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.063 to 3.810; P=0.032) was associated with worse DFS, whereas there were no significant factors associated with OS. Adding MRI to US for preoperative evaluation was not associated with DFS (HR, 1.117; 95% CI, 0.223 to 5.583; P=0.893) or OS (HR, 1.529; 95% CI, 0.300 to 7.781; P=0.609) in male patients. Conclusion Adding breast MRI to US in the preoperative evaluation was not associated with survival outcomes in male breast cancer patients, and the pathologic index cancer size was associated with worse DFS.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.

Purpose: This study examined the influence of patient safety management systems, leadership, and communication types on nurses’ patient safety management activities. Methods: Participants were 237 nurses who has been working in medical institutes for over 6 months. Online self-report questionnaires were conducted. Measures included patient safety management systems, transformational leadership, authentic leadership, communication types, and patient safety management activities. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and multiple regression with SPSS/WIN 24.0. Results: According to the general characteristics, patient safety management activities were higher among nurses who were female (t=4.27, p<.001), charge nurses (t=-2.41, p=.016), had healthcare accreditation experience (t=4.36, p<.001), and worked in nursing units implementing a team nursing method (F=6.26, p=.002) with more than 30 nurses (F=6.28, p=.043). Female nurses (β=.16, p=.015) with high authentic leadership (β=.21, p=.002), low informal communication (β=-.21, p=.004), and high downward communication (β=.19, p=.009) showed higher patient safety management activities. The models' explanatory power was 21.0%. Conclusion Based on the results of this study, further research is needed to investigate the differences in patient safety management activities according to gender, the number of nurses per ward, and the nursing delivery system. Lowering informal communication and strengthening authentic leadership and downward communication may improve nurses’ patient safety management activities.

Purpose: Evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes is unclear. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological intervention in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods: We conducted a search on databases from November 11 to 19, 2022, for randomized controlled trials for the effects of non-pharmacological intervention in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. To identify recent research trends, we included studies published from 2017 to November 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2.0. To estimate the effect size, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 program and R Studio. Results: A total of 45 studies were included in the systematic review. Among those, 30 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Non-pharmacological interventions were significantly effective in improving Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.42, −0.09), quality of life (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.76), and anxiety (SMD = −0.91, 95% CI: −1.26, −0.56). Subgroup analysis showed that duration of intervention was not a covariate related to HbA1c levels. Conclusions Non-pharmacological interventions have shown effectiveness in improving the HbA1c, quality of life, and anxiety in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Future studies with more rigorous methodology are needed to confirm and strengthen the validity of these findings. Additionally, attention to changes in the lipid profile and self-care motivation among adolescents with type 1 diabetes is warranted.