Background: Identifying the risks related to the complications of electrical cardioversion (ECV) can alert the determinaton of rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,058 patients who underwent ECV for persistent or long-standing persistent AF/atrial flutter (AFL) from multiple centers. Patients were classified into the no-complication (1,023 patients) and complication (35 patients) groups based on the following major complications: stroke and/or systemic embolism (SSE), myocardial infarction, major bleeding, implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, and death at 1 year follow-up after ECV. Results: Compared with the no-complication group, the complication group exhibited a higher proportion of female patients (37% vs. 22%), as well as a higher proportion of patients with older age (67 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 10 years), diabetes mellitus (DM) (49% vs. 24%), heart failure (HF) (49% vs. 30%), SSE (23% vs. 9%), high CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (CV) score (3.6 ± 1.8 vs.2.2 ± 1.4), low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (50 ± 16% vs. 58 ± 21%), and high left atrial volume index (LAVI) (51 ± 26 vs. 40 ± 20 mL/m 2 ). Class I and III antiarrhythmics were less prescribed in the complication group than in the no-complication group (57% vs.76%). Univariate analysis for complications revealed age (≥ 65 years), female sex, DM, HF, SSE, LVEF (< 50%), LAVI (≥ 40 mL/m 2 ), CV score (≥ 3), bradycardia on Holter (< 60/min), and no antiarrhythmics as risk factors. Among these, multivariate analysis revealed clinical significance of female sex and SSE. Conclusion Female sex and a history of SSE were the most important risk factors of complications in patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF/AFL who underwent ECV.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

Purpose: This study assessed the validity of the hospital standardized mortality ratio (HSMR) risk-adjusted model by comparing models that include clinical information and the current model based on administrative information in South Korea. Materials and Methods: The data of 53976 inpatients were analyzed. The current HSMR risk-adjusted model (Model 1) adjusts for sex, age, health coverage, emergency hospitalization status, main diagnosis, surgery status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) using administrative data. As candidate variables, among clinical information, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, present on admission CCI, and cancer stage were collected. Surgery status, intensive care in the intensive care unit, and CCI were selected as proxy variables among administrative data. In-hospital death was defined as the dependent variable, and a logistic regression analysis was performed. The statistical performance of each model was compared using C-index values. Results: There was a strong correlation between variables in the administrative data and those in the medical records. The C-index of the existing model (Model 1) was 0.785; Model 2, which included all clinical data, had a higher C-index of 0.857. In Model 4, in which APACHE II and SAPS 3 were replaced with variables recorded in the administrative data from Model 2, the C-index further increased to 0.863. Conclusion The HSMR assessment model improved when clinical data were adjusted. Simultaneously, the validity of the evaluation method could be secured even if some of the clinical information was replaced with the information in the administrative data.

The common data model (CDM) has found widespread application in healthcare studies, but its utilization in cancer research has been limited. This article describes the development and implementation strategy for Cancer Clinical Library Databases (CCLDs), which are standardized cancer-specific databases established under the Korea-Clinical Data Utilization Network for Research Excellence (K-CURE) project by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare. Fifteen leading hospitals and fourteen academic associations in Korea are engaged in constructing CCLDs for 10 primary cancer types. For each cancer type-specific CCLD, cancer data experts determine key clinical data items essential for cancer research, standardize these items across cancer types, and create a standardized schema. Comprehensive clinical records covering diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with annual updates, are collected for each cancer patient in the target population, and quality control is based on six-sigma standards. To protect patient privacy, CCLDs follow stringent data security guidelines by pseudonymizing personal identification information and operating within a closed analysis environment. Researchers can apply for access to CCLD data through the K-CURE portal, which is subject to Institutional Review Board and Data Review Board approval. The CCLD is considered a pioneering standardized cancer-specific database, significantly representing Korea’s cancer data. It is expected to overcome limitations of previous CDMs and provide a valuable resource for multicenter cancer research in Korea.

Objective: Primary frozen shoulder causes significant pain and progressively restricts shoulder movements. Diagnosis is made clinically based on patient history and physical examination. Management is mainly non-invasive owing to its self-limiting clinical course. However, clinical practice guidelines for frozen shoulder have not yet been developed in Korea. The developed guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of frozen shoulder. Methods: A guideline development committee reviewed the literature from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KMbase). Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework, the committee formulated two backgrounds and 16 key questions to address common clinical concerns. Recommendations were made using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Results: Diabetes, thyroid disease, and dyslipidemia significantly increase the risk of developing a frozen shoulder. Although frozen shoulder is often self-limiting, some patients may experience long-term functional disabilities. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging should be used as adjunctive tools alongside clinical diagnosis, and rather than as independent diagnostic methods. Noninvasive approaches, such as medications, physical modalities, exercises, electrical stimulation, and manual therapy, may reduce pain and improve shoulder function. Other noninvasive interventions have limited evidence, and their application should be based on clinical judgment. Intra-articular steroid injections are recommended for treatment, and physiotherapy or hydrodilation with steroid injections can also be beneficial. Conclusion These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating primary frozen shoulder.