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.

Objectives: Limited information is available concerning the epidemiology of stroke and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Republic of Korea. This study aimed to develop a national surveillance system to monitor the incidence of stroke and AMI using national claims data. Methods: We developed and validated identification algorithms for stroke and AMI using claims data. This validation involved a 2-stage stratified sampling method with a review of medical records for sampled cases. The weighted positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated based on the sampling structure and the correspondingsampling rates. Incident cases and the incidence rates of stroke and AMI in the Republic ofKorea were estimated by applying the algorithms and weighted PPV and NPV to the 2018National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: In total, 2,200 cases (1,086 stroke cases and 1,114 AMI cases) were sampled from the 2018 claims database. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithms were 94.3% and 88.6% for stroke and 97.9% and 90.1% for AMI, respectively. The estimated number of cases, including recurrent events, was 150,837 for stroke and 40,529 for AMI in 2018. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rate for stroke and AMI was 180.2 and 46.1 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively, in 2018. Conclusion This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing a national surveillance system based on claims data and identification algorithms for stroke and AMI to monitor their incidence rates.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.

The aim of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations for determining the surgical extent in patients with locally invasive differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Locally invasive DTC with gross extrathyroidal extension invading surrounding anatomical structures may lead to several functional deficits and poor oncological outcomes. At present, the optimal extent of surgery in locally invasive DTC remains a matter of debate, and there are no adequate guidelines. On October 8, 2021, four experts searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases; the identified papers were reviewed by 39 experts in thyroid and head and neck surgery. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence, and to develop and report recommendations. The strength of a recommendation reflects the confidence of a guideline panel that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh any undesirable effects, across all patients for whom the recommendation is applicable. After completing the draft guidelines, Delphi questionnaires were completed by members of the Korean Society of Head and Neck Surgery. Twenty-seven evidence-based recommendations were made for several factors, including the preoperative workup; surgical extent of thyroidectomy; surgery for cancer invading the strap muscles, recurrent laryngeal nerve, laryngeal framework, trachea, or esophagus; and surgery for patients with central and lateral cervical lymph node involvement. Evidence-based guidelines were devised to help clinicians make safer and more efficient clinical decisions for the optimal surgical treatment of patients with locally invasive DTC.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.