Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Background: Infantile hemangioma (IH) is a common benign vascular tumor that occurs during infancy. Oral propranolol is used as a first-line treatment. However, standardized guidelines for evaluating treatment efficacy, particularly the appropriate timing and parameters for Doppler ultrasound (US), have not been established. This study reports on the evaluation of therapeutic efficacy of oral propranolol solution in IH patients using Doppler US, and aims to propose the appropriate timing and parameters for using Doppler US based on this experience. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 120 patients with IH who were treated with oral propranolol solution and maintained for over 6 months from May 2017 to April 2023. Doppler US evaluation of IH was performed at diagnosis, 1-2 and 6-12 months after treatment initiation, and 6 months post-therapy cessation. A complete response (CR) was identified as a reduction in vascularity along with a decrease in longest diameter (LD) or thickness of 50% or more. Recurrence was evaluated based on increased vascularity or size 6 months after treatment discontinuation. Results: Of 120 patients with IH, 82 females and 38 males were analyzed. IH was first detected at a median age of 12 days (range, 1-240 days), and treatment began at 76 days (range, 27-570 days), continuing for an average of 10.4 months (range, 5-24 months). Initial Doppler US measurements showed an LD of 2.65±1.52 cm and a thickness of 0.79±0.55 cm, with prominent vascularity. After 1-2 months of treatment, LD and thickness decreased by 12.9% and 25.9%, respectively. By 6-12 months, reductions reached 37.2% and 53.6%. CR occurred in 77 patients (64.2%) after 6-12 months of treatment. Eleven patients (9.2%) experienced a recurrence. Conclusion Doppler US is a valuable modality for evaluating the characteristics, treatment response, and recurrence of IH treated with oral propranolol.

This paper aims to review the statistical methods that are widely used in medical and clinical research. Statistical analysis is crucial for ensuring the reliability of research results; therefore, methods should be carefully tailored to research interests and objectives, depending on the type and characteristics of the data. This paper explains various types of data, discusses how to confirm whether the data satisfy these methods’ specific assumptions, and elucidates the meaning and interpretation of univariable and multivariable analysis. Finally, it presents corresponding examples to help other researchers understand how these methods are applied in real-world studies and select appropriate methods that ensure both research quality and reliability.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

This paper aims to review the statistical methods that are widely used in medical and clinical research. Statistical analysis is crucial for ensuring the reliability of research results; therefore, methods should be carefully tailored to research interests and objectives, depending on the type and characteristics of the data. This paper explains various types of data, discusses how to confirm whether the data satisfy these methods’ specific assumptions, and elucidates the meaning and interpretation of univariable and multivariable analysis. Finally, it presents corresponding examples to help other researchers understand how these methods are applied in real-world studies and select appropriate methods that ensure both research quality and reliability.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

This paper aims to review the statistical methods that are widely used in medical and clinical research. Statistical analysis is crucial for ensuring the reliability of research results; therefore, methods should be carefully tailored to research interests and objectives, depending on the type and characteristics of the data. This paper explains various types of data, discusses how to confirm whether the data satisfy these methods’ specific assumptions, and elucidates the meaning and interpretation of univariable and multivariable analysis. Finally, it presents corresponding examples to help other researchers understand how these methods are applied in real-world studies and select appropriate methods that ensure both research quality and reliability.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.