Background: Despite the increase in daily alcohol intake in recent decades and the implementation of national health screenings, effective management strategies for alcohol consumption remain outdated. This review evaluates intervention studies on screening and behavioral counseling for unhealthy alcohol use, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of interventions and improving health outcomes. Methods: On the basis of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)- ADOLOPMENT framework, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were examined to investigate the effectiveness of screening and counseling interventions in reducing unhealthy alcohol use. Five key questions were generated, and an evaluation and quality assessment of existing systematic reviews and new evidence related to each key question were conducted. Results: Updating the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Cochrane 2018 reviews, we identified five new randomized trials that evaluated screening and counseling interventions for unhealthy alcohol use. For Key Question 2, the sensitivity and specificity of the new screening studies were consistent with those of prior research. Brief interventions were confirmed to reduce alcohol use (Key Question 4a), although additional research is required for a wider array of health outcomes. One study highlighted the benefits of counseling interventions for newborn health indicators in pregnant women (Key Question 4b). No new evidence was found regarding the harms of screening (Key Question 3) or alcohol use reduction interventions (Key Question 5). Conclusion This review supports the continued use of brief interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in highrisk groups and highlights the need for culturally tailored research in Korea.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: Despite the increase in daily alcohol intake in recent decades and the implementation of national health screenings, effective management strategies for alcohol consumption remain outdated. This review evaluates intervention studies on screening and behavioral counseling for unhealthy alcohol use, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of interventions and improving health outcomes. Methods: On the basis of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)- ADOLOPMENT framework, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were examined to investigate the effectiveness of screening and counseling interventions in reducing unhealthy alcohol use. Five key questions were generated, and an evaluation and quality assessment of existing systematic reviews and new evidence related to each key question were conducted. Results: Updating the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Cochrane 2018 reviews, we identified five new randomized trials that evaluated screening and counseling interventions for unhealthy alcohol use. For Key Question 2, the sensitivity and specificity of the new screening studies were consistent with those of prior research. Brief interventions were confirmed to reduce alcohol use (Key Question 4a), although additional research is required for a wider array of health outcomes. One study highlighted the benefits of counseling interventions for newborn health indicators in pregnant women (Key Question 4b). No new evidence was found regarding the harms of screening (Key Question 3) or alcohol use reduction interventions (Key Question 5). Conclusion This review supports the continued use of brief interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in highrisk groups and highlights the need for culturally tailored research in Korea.

Background: Despite the increase in daily alcohol intake in recent decades and the implementation of national health screenings, effective management strategies for alcohol consumption remain outdated. This review evaluates intervention studies on screening and behavioral counseling for unhealthy alcohol use, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of interventions and improving health outcomes. Methods: On the basis of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)- ADOLOPMENT framework, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were examined to investigate the effectiveness of screening and counseling interventions in reducing unhealthy alcohol use. Five key questions were generated, and an evaluation and quality assessment of existing systematic reviews and new evidence related to each key question were conducted. Results: Updating the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Cochrane 2018 reviews, we identified five new randomized trials that evaluated screening and counseling interventions for unhealthy alcohol use. For Key Question 2, the sensitivity and specificity of the new screening studies were consistent with those of prior research. Brief interventions were confirmed to reduce alcohol use (Key Question 4a), although additional research is required for a wider array of health outcomes. One study highlighted the benefits of counseling interventions for newborn health indicators in pregnant women (Key Question 4b). No new evidence was found regarding the harms of screening (Key Question 3) or alcohol use reduction interventions (Key Question 5). Conclusion This review supports the continued use of brief interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in highrisk groups and highlights the need for culturally tailored research in Korea.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: Despite the increase in daily alcohol intake in recent decades and the implementation of national health screenings, effective management strategies for alcohol consumption remain outdated. This review evaluates intervention studies on screening and behavioral counseling for unhealthy alcohol use, with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness of interventions and improving health outcomes. Methods: On the basis of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation)- ADOLOPMENT framework, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were examined to investigate the effectiveness of screening and counseling interventions in reducing unhealthy alcohol use. Five key questions were generated, and an evaluation and quality assessment of existing systematic reviews and new evidence related to each key question were conducted. Results: Updating the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and Cochrane 2018 reviews, we identified five new randomized trials that evaluated screening and counseling interventions for unhealthy alcohol use. For Key Question 2, the sensitivity and specificity of the new screening studies were consistent with those of prior research. Brief interventions were confirmed to reduce alcohol use (Key Question 4a), although additional research is required for a wider array of health outcomes. One study highlighted the benefits of counseling interventions for newborn health indicators in pregnant women (Key Question 4b). No new evidence was found regarding the harms of screening (Key Question 3) or alcohol use reduction interventions (Key Question 5). Conclusion This review supports the continued use of brief interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in highrisk groups and highlights the need for culturally tailored research in Korea.

Background/Aims: The effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract is uncertain, with potential to worsen damage. This study aimed to find the best method for protecting the entire GI tract from mucosal damage. Methods: A retrospective cohort study at Samsung Medical Center (2002-2019) included 195,817 patients prescribed GI mucosa-damaging agents. The primary goal was to assess the effectiveness of GI protective agents in preventing significant hemoglobin drops (>2 g/dL), indicating overall GI mucosal damage. Self-controlled case series and landmark analysis were used to address biases in real-world data. Results: The incidence rate ratios for rebamipide, PPI, and histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) were 0.34, 0.33, and 0.52, respectively. Rebamipide showed a significantly lower incidence rate than H2RA and was comparable to PPIs. Landmark analysis revealed significant reductions in hemoglobin drop risk with rebamipide and H2RA, but not with PPI. Conclusions Rebamipide, like PPIs, was highly effective in preventing blood hemoglobin level decreases, as shown in real-world data. Rebamipide could be a comprehensive strategy for protecting the entire GI tract, especially when considering PPIs' potential side effects on the lower GI tract.

Objective: Effective triage of febrile patients in the emergency department is crucial during times of overcrowding to prioritize care and allocate resources, especially during pandemics. However, available triage tools often require laboratory data and lack accuracy. We aimed to develop a simple and accurate triage tool for febrile patients by modifying the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 7,303 febrile patients and created modified versions of qSOFA using factors identified through multivariable analysis. The performance of these modified qSOFAs in predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Through multivariable analysis, the identified factors were age (“A” factor), male sex (“M” factor), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2; “S” factor), and lactate level (“L” factor). The AUROCs of ASqSOFA (in-hospital mortality: 0.812 [95% confidence interval, 0.789–0.835]; ICU admission: 0.794 [95% confidence interval, 0.771–0.817]) were simple and not inferior to those of other more complex models (e.g., ASMqSOFA, ASLqSOFA, and ASMLqSOFA). ASqSOFA also displayed significantly higher AUROC than other triage scales, such as the Modified Early Warning Score and Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The optimal cutoff score of ASqSOFA for the outcome was 2, and the score for redistribution to a lower level emergency department was 0. Conclusion We demonstrated that ASqSOFA can be employed as a simple and efficient triage tool for emergency febrile patients to aid in resource distribution during overcrowding. It also may be applicable in prehospital settings for febrile patient triage.

Background: This study aimed to validate the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) for predicting mortality associated with trauma in older Korean adults and compare the GTOS with the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS). Methods: This study included patients aged ≥65 years who visited the Chungbuk National University Hospital Regional Trauma Center between January 2016 and December 2022. We used receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots to assess the discrimination and calibration of the scoring systems. Results: Among 3,053 patients, the median age was 77 years, and the mortality rate was 5.2%. The overall GTOS-predicted mortality and 1–TRISS were 5.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 3.7–9.5) and 4.7% (IQR, 4.7–4.7), respectively. The areas under the curves (AUCs) of 1–TRISS and GTOS for the total population were 0.763 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.719–0.806) and 0.794 (95% CI, 0.755–0.833), respectively. In the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤12 group, the in-hospital mortality rate was 27.5% (79 deaths). The GTOS-predicted mortality and 1–TRISS in this group were 18.6% (IQR, 7.5–34.7) and 26.9% (IQR, 11.9–73.1), respectively. The AUCs of 1–TRISS and GTOS for the total population were 0.800 (95% CI, 0.776–0.854) and 0.744 (95% CI, 0.685–0.804), respectively. Conclusion The GTOS and TRISS demonstrated comparable accuracy in predicting mortality, while the GTOS offered the advantage of simpler calculations. However, the GTOS tended to underestimate mortality in patients with GCS ≤12; thus, its application requires care in such cases.