Background: Laser procedures are integral to dermatologic practice, yet safety measures- particularly regarding ocular protection and plume control- are poorly studied in real-world settings. Objective: To evaluate current practices in eye protection, infection control, and occupational risk awareness among Korean dermatologists performing laser treatments. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among board-certified dermatologists at the 2024 Korean Society for Dermatologic Laser Surgery meeting. The questionnaire covered demographics, laser frequency, use of goggles and masks, infection control strategies, ophthalmologic monitoring, and history of warts or cancer. Results: Seventy-nine respondents completed the survey. All reported using protective goggles, but only 26.6% and 22.8% did so for CO 2 and erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet lasers, respectively. Only 24.1% underwent regular eye exams, and 13.9% reported eye conditions after starting laser practice. While 89.9% used masks, 40.8% used dental masks, which are inadequate for plume protection. Suction devices were used by 94.9%, though performance specifications were unclear. Warts were reported by 46.8% of respondents; two reported cancer diagnoses after initiating laser work. Conclusion Despite high overall adherence to basic safety practices, critical gaps remain. Our findings highlight the need for standardized guidelines and long-term occupational health monitoring to ensure safe laser practice.

Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

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.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

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.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

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.

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.