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.

Background: The aim of this study is to review data on infants who received hearing aid support through the Infantile Hearing Aid Support Program after the settlement of universal newborn hearing screening (NHS) in the country over the past five years in Korea. This study seeks to identify the characteristics of infants with bilateral moderate hearing loss and to explore effective strategies for auditory rehabilitation by analyzing the timing of hearing aid interventions and regional disparities. Methods: We analyzed the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) records and the Infantile Hearing Aid Support Program database between January 2019 and December 2023. Our analysis included the NHS performance rate, NHS results, diagnostic hearing test outcomes, types of hearing loss, and the relationship between NHS results and hearing loss risk factors. Additionally, we examined the submission dates for the program, hearing aid purchase dates, types of hearing aids, and whether the residential area, prescription area, and hearing aid purchase areas matched. Results: In this period, a total of 1,318,551 neonates were born and 540 bilateral moderate hearing loss infants registered for the Infantile Hearing Aid Support Program. The NHS performance rate increased to 95.4% by 2023, while the proportion of infants receiving diagnostic hearing tests within three months was 46.2%. The rate of infants receiving hearing aids within six months for auditory rehabilitation was 22.4%. Although no correlation was found between risk factors for hearing loss and NHS results, it was observed that infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit or with other syndromes had a higher likelihood of being diagnosed with moderate hearing loss, even if they passed the NHS. Finally, there were regional disparities in access to hearing aid prescriptions and rehabilitation. Conclusion Our findings suggest that auditory rehabilitation achieves greater focus following the implementation of NHS. This study also provides valuable insights into the hearing status and rehabilitation outcomes of infants with moderate hearing loss.Furthermore, we anticipate that these results will contribute to informing policies aimed at reducing regional disparities in access to auditory rehabilitation services.

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.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Cell-based therapies have been used as promising treatments for several untreatable diseases. However, cellbased therapies have side effects such as tumorigenesis and immune responses. To overcome these side effects, therapeutic effects of exosomes have been researched as replacements for cell-based therapies. In addition, exosomes reduced the risk that can be induced by cell-based therapies. Exosomes contain biomolecules such as proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids that play an essential role in cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions during biological processes. Since the introduction of exosomes, those have been proven perpetually as one of the most effective and therapeutic methods for incurable diseases. Much research has been conducted to enhance the properties of exosomes, including immune regulation, tissue repair, and regeneration. However, yield rate of exosomes is the critical obstacle that should be overcome for practical cell-free therapy. Three-dimensional (3D) culture methods are introduced as a breakthrough to get higher production yields of exosomes. For example, hanging drop and microwell were well known 3D culture methods and easy to use without invasiveness. However, these methods have limitation in mass production of exosomes. Therefore, a scaffold, spinner flask, and fiber bioreactor were introduced for mass production of exosomes isolated from various cell types. Furthermore, exosomes treatments derived from 3D cultured cells showed enhanced cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and immunosuppressive properties. This review provides therapeutic applications of exosomes using 3D culture methods.

We experienced a case of disseminated Staphylococcus aureus infection with bacterial pericarditis that progressed to septic shock and multiorgan failure despite pericardiocentesis and surgical removal of the original abscess with intensive antibiotic therapy. We report this case because of the patient’s very rare and remarkable echocardiographic findings and highly turbid pericardial effusion.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to apply patient-engaged bedside handoffs in comprehensive care units, and to evaluate the effects of bedsides to nurses and patients. Methods: This study employed a cluster randomized cross-over design.Electrical Medical Record (EMR)-based handoffs and patient-engaged bedside handoffs were alternatively applied to 104 patients, who were assigned to a total of 30 clusters (nursing handoff teams) in 4 comprehensive care units at the S medical center in Seoul, and the patients evaluated each type of handoffs. A total of 139 nurses were also participated in the same units and evaluated each type of handoffs. Data were analyzed using t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, ANOVA, and Kruskal-Walls test. Results: The patient's satisfaction of the patient-engaged bedside handoffs was higher than that of the EMR-based handoffs (Z=-5.16, p<.001). On the other hand, the nurse's satisfaction of the patient-engaged bedside handoffs was significantly lower than that of the EMR-based handoffs (t=13.21, p<.001). There were no differences in length of the reporting time between two types of handoffs (t=-0.48, p=.634). Conclusion Patient satisfaction with the patient-engaged bedside handoffs was higher than that of EMR-based handoffs, and nurses' satisfaction with the patient-engaged bedside handoffs was significantly lower than that of EMR-based handoffs. Future studies are needed regarding the impacts of patient-engaged bedside handoffs on the quality of healthcare by identifying the benefits of the handoffs.