Background/Aims: Although metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) represent the updated nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, studies comparing the prognostic implications of these conditions remain limited. This meta-analysis aimed to quantify the associations among MAFLD, MASLD, and long-term clinical outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify cohort studies that assessed the association of MASLD and MAFLD with all-cause mortality, cause-specific (cardiovascular and cancer-related) mortality, and the incidence of cardiovascular disease in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases from inception through October 31, 2024. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for relevant outcomes. Results: We identified 18 cohort studies, comprising 10,653,666 patients with MAFLD from 13 studies and 3,202,447 patients with MASLD from nine studies. MAFLD was significantly associated with an increased risk of overall mortality (pooled HR [95% confidence interval], 1.30 [1.16 to 1.47]) and cardiovascular mortality (1.31 [1.08 to 1.60]; both p<0.01), but not with cancer-related mortality (1.10 [0.97 to 1.24]; p=0.130). Conversely, MASLD was associated with a higher risk for all mortality outcomes: overall mortality (1.34 [1.12 to 1.61]), cardiovascular mortality (1.17 [1.07 to 1.27]), and cancer-related mortality (1.24 [1.19 to 1.29]; all p<0.01). The risk of cardiovascular disease was increased in patients with both MAFLD (1.48 [1.31 to 1.66]) and MASLD (1.33 [1.21 to 1.46]; both p<0.001). Conclusions MAFLD and MASLD were both associated with increased risks of mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. Notably, a significant association with cancer-related mortality was observed for MASLD, but not for MAFLD.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Infection control is a critical concern in nursing homes, especially in the post-COVID-19 era, due to the frailty and complex health conditions of older adults. This study aimed to develop an educational framework to improve infection control practices in nursing homes. Methods: We interviewed five infection specialists to gain practical insights. Subsequently, we administered three rounds of Delphi surveys to 20 nursing home practitioners to assess the validity and practicality of the selected items, thereby establishing a comprehensive framework. Results: The interview data revealed three key categories: recipient-centered, interaction-centered, and environment-centered. Following the Delphi surveys, we identified seven crucial factors for practicality in nursing homes: the characteristics of residents’ health, detection of subtle changes, identification of nonverbal signs, effective communication among professionals, feedback and assessment among professionals, following infection control principles, education based on problem-solving, and immunization and isolation strategies for creating a safe environment. Conclusion: By integrating expert insights and validating the framework through the Delphi technique, the proposed framework enhances infection control training and education programs in nursing homes, ultimately ensuring resident safety.

Alport syndrome, a rare genetic disorder affecting around 1 in 50,000 individuals, primarily presents as microscopic hematuria and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with associated extrarenal complications. The Alport syndrome results from mutations in COL4A3, COL4A4, and COL4A5 genes, disrupting the formation of the α3–α4–α5 chain in the collagen IV network. The etiology involves X chromosome- related, autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and digenic inheritance patterns. The disease primarily manifests as kidney involvement, featuring persistent hematuria, proteinuria, and a progressive decline in renal function. Hearing loss, ocular abnormalities, and extrarenal manifestations further contribute to its complexity. Genotype-phenotype correlations are relatively evident, with distinct presentations in X-linked, autosomal recessive, and autosomal dominant cases. Diagnosis relies on urinalysis, histologic examination, and genetic testing with advancements in next-generation sequencing aiding identification. Although no specific treatment exists, early diagnosis improves outcomes, emphasizing the importance of genetic testing for prognosis and familial screening. The purpose of this review is to advance knowledge and enhance understanding of Alport syndrome.

Purpose: The importance of wound care as a part of end-of-life care is rising due to aging populations and increased chronic disease prevalence. This study developed a comprehensive competency framework on palliative wound care for nursing staff within long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: The study utilized a three-phased exploratory methods approach involving topic modeling, expert interviews, and a Delphi survey. Results: Four key competencies emerged regarding nursing competency for palliative wound care in LTCFs: (1) building partnerships with patients and caregivers, (2) an individual approach to wound treatment based on understanding the patient's situation, (3) a holistic approach through shared information and cooperative decision-making, and (4) integration of wound management knowledge within end-of-life care. Conclusion This framework supports developing targeted training programs for nurses to improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients in LTCFs.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.