1.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
2.Long-Term Incidence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Ischemic Stroke
Jun Yup KIM ; Beom Joon KIM ; Jihoon KANG ; Do Yeon KIM ; Moon-Ku HAN ; Seong-Eun KIM ; Heeyoung LEE ; Jong-Moo PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Soo Joo LEE ; Jae Guk KIM ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Dae-Hyun KIM ; Tai Hwan PARK ; Kyungbok LEE ; Hong-Kyun PARK ; Yong-Jin CHO ; Keun-Sik HONG ; Kang-Ho CHOI ; Joon-Tae KIM ; Dong-Eog KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Mi-Sun OH ; Kyung-Ho YU ; Byung-Chul LEE ; Kwang-Yeol PARK ; Ji Sung LEE ; Sujung JANG ; Jae Eun CHAE ; Juneyoung LEE ; Min-Surk KYE ; Philip B. GORELICK ; Hee-Joon BAE ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):102-112
Background:
and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes.
Methods:
We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data.
Results:
Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4.
Conclusion
Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
4.Long-Term Incidence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Ischemic Stroke
Jun Yup KIM ; Beom Joon KIM ; Jihoon KANG ; Do Yeon KIM ; Moon-Ku HAN ; Seong-Eun KIM ; Heeyoung LEE ; Jong-Moo PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Soo Joo LEE ; Jae Guk KIM ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Dae-Hyun KIM ; Tai Hwan PARK ; Kyungbok LEE ; Hong-Kyun PARK ; Yong-Jin CHO ; Keun-Sik HONG ; Kang-Ho CHOI ; Joon-Tae KIM ; Dong-Eog KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Mi-Sun OH ; Kyung-Ho YU ; Byung-Chul LEE ; Kwang-Yeol PARK ; Ji Sung LEE ; Sujung JANG ; Jae Eun CHAE ; Juneyoung LEE ; Min-Surk KYE ; Philip B. GORELICK ; Hee-Joon BAE ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):102-112
Background:
and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes.
Methods:
We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data.
Results:
Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4.
Conclusion
Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.
5.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
6.Long-Term Incidence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Following Ischemic Stroke
Jun Yup KIM ; Beom Joon KIM ; Jihoon KANG ; Do Yeon KIM ; Moon-Ku HAN ; Seong-Eun KIM ; Heeyoung LEE ; Jong-Moo PARK ; Kyusik KANG ; Soo Joo LEE ; Jae Guk KIM ; Jae-Kwan CHA ; Dae-Hyun KIM ; Tai Hwan PARK ; Kyungbok LEE ; Hong-Kyun PARK ; Yong-Jin CHO ; Keun-Sik HONG ; Kang-Ho CHOI ; Joon-Tae KIM ; Dong-Eog KIM ; Jay Chol CHOI ; Mi-Sun OH ; Kyung-Ho YU ; Byung-Chul LEE ; Kwang-Yeol PARK ; Ji Sung LEE ; Sujung JANG ; Jae Eun CHAE ; Juneyoung LEE ; Min-Surk KYE ; Philip B. GORELICK ; Hee-Joon BAE ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):102-112
Background:
and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes.
Methods:
We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data.
Results:
Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4.
Conclusion
Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.
7.Consensus-Based Guidelines for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Korea (Part II): Biologics and JAK inhibitors
Hyun-Chang KO ; Yu Ri WOO ; Joo Yeon KO ; Hye One KIM ; Chan Ho NA ; Youin BAE ; Young-Joon SEO ; Min Kyung SHIN ; Jiyoung AHN ; Bark-Lynn LEW ; Dong Hun LEE ; Sang Eun LEE ; Sul Hee LEE ; Yang Won LEE ; Ji Hyun LEE ; Yong Hyun JANG ; Jiehyun JEON ; Sun Young CHOI ; Ju Hee HAN ; Tae Young HAN ; Sang Wook SON ; Sang Hyun CHO
Annals of Dermatology 2025;37(4):216-227
Background:
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed.
Objective:
This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based recommendations.
Methods:
The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved.
Results:
This guideline provides treatment guidance on advanced systemic treatment modalities for AD. In particular, the guideline offers up-to-date treatment recommendations for biologics and Janus-kinase inhibitors used in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD.It also provides guidance on other therapies for AD, along with tailored recommendations for children, adolescents, the elderly, and pregnant or breastfeeding women.
Conclusion
KADA’s updated AD treatment guidelines incorporate the latest evidence and expert opinion to provide a comprehensive approach to AD treatment. The guidelines will help clinicians optimize patient-specific therapies.
8.Consensus-Based Guidelines for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Korea (Part I): Basic Therapy, Topical Therapy, and Conventional Systemic Therapy
Hyun-Chang KO ; Yu Ri WOO ; Joo Yeon KO ; Hye One KIM ; Chan Ho NA ; Youin BAE ; Young-Joon SEO ; Min Kyung SHIN ; Jiyoung AHN ; Bark-Lynn LEW ; Dong Hun LEE ; Sang Eun LEE ; Sul Hee LEE ; Yang Won LEE ; Ji Hyun LEE ; Yong Hyun JANG ; Jiehyun JEON ; Sun Young CHOI ; Ju Hee HAN ; Tae Young HAN ; Sang Wook SON ; Sang Hyun CHO
Annals of Dermatology 2025;37(4):201-215
Background:
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed.
Objective:
This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based practices.
Methods:
The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved.
Results:
The guidelines provide detailed recommendations on foundational therapies, including the use of moisturizers, cleansing and bathing practices, allergen avoidance, and patient education. Guidance on topical therapies, such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, is also provided to help manage inflammation and maintain skin barrier function in patients with AD. Additionally, recommendations on conventional systemic therapies, including corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate, are provided for managing moderate to severe AD.
Conclusion
KADA’s updated AD guidelines offer clinicians evidence-based strategies focused on basic therapies, topical therapies, and conventional systemic therapies, equipping them to enhance quality of care and improve patient outcomes in AD management.
9.2023 Consensus Korean Diagnostic Criteria for Atopic Dermatitis
Ji Hyun LEE ; Sul Hee LEE ; Youin BAE ; Young Bok LEE ; Yong Hyun JANG ; Jiyoung AHN ; Joo Yeon KO ; Hyun-Chang KO ; Hye One KIM ; Chan Ho NA ; Young-Joon SEO ; Min Kyung SHIN ; Yu Ri WOO ; Bark Lyn LEW ; Dong Hun LEE ; Sang Eun LEE ; Jiehyun JEON ; Sun Young CHOI ; Tae Young HAN ; Yang Won LEE ; Sang Wook SON ; Young Lip PARK
Annals of Dermatology 2025;37(1):12-21
Background:
In 2006, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group released the diagnostic criteria for Korean atopic dermatitis (AD). Recently, more simplified, and practical AD diagnostic criteria have been proposed. Objective: Based on updated criteria and experience, we studied to develop and share a consensus on diagnostic criteria for AD in Koreans.
Materials and Methods:
For the diagnostic criteria, a questionnaire was constructed by searching the English-language literature in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A modified Delphi method composed of 3 rounds of email questionnaires was adopted for the consensus process. Fifty-four KADA council members participated in the 3 rounds of votes and expert consensus recommendations were established.
Results:
Diagnostic criteria for AD include pruritus, eczema with age-specific pattern, and chronic or relapsing history. Diagnostic aids for AD encompass xerosis, immunoglobulin E reactivity, hand–foot eczema, periorbital changes, periauricular changes, perioral changes, nipple eczema, perifollicular accentuation, and personal or family history of atopy.
Conclusion
This study streamlined and updated the diagnostic criteria for AD in Korea, making them more practicable for use in real-world clinical field.
10.In Vitro Diagnostics Certification for Creatinine Assays in Korea over 7 Years: Achievements and Future Outlook
Eun-Jung CHO ; Joonsang YU ; Jeayeon RYU ; Jiwoo SEO ; Hyunae LEE ; Chan-Ik CHO ; Tae-Dong JEONG ; Sollip KIM ; Woochang LEE ; Sail CHUN ; Won-Ki MIN
Annals of Laboratory Medicine 2025;45(5):493-502
Background:
An international reference measurement laboratory network for creatinine (Cr) is lacking; therefore, Korea developed an independent evaluation and certification system. The in vitro diagnostics (IVD) certification program, launched in 2017, formed part of a broader Cr standardization initiative intended to enhance accuracy at the manufacturing stage.
Methods:
The program was designed to evaluate analytical systems, including all reagent lots, calibrators, and instrument models, twice annually. Bias, imprecision, total error (TE), and linearity were evaluated based on established acceptance criteria. A post-certification process allows submission for a second challenge and validation of corrective actions.
Results:
Between 2017 and 2023, 489 analytical systems were evaluated. Average acceptance rates for bias, imprecision, TE, and linearity were 70.8%, 95.9%, 87.7%, and 87.8%, respectively. The lowest acceptance rate for bias evaluation was 8.7% for the kinetic Jaffe method without compensation in 2018. Over the 7-year period, the mean absolute percentage bias (absBias%), coefficient of variation (CV), and TE were 4.62%, 1.37%,and 7.29%, respectively. The highest absBias% (7.94%) was observed in the 0.0 ≤ Cr < 1.0target value range. Since 2019, a consistent reduction in absBias% has been observed.
Conclusions
This program is a pioneering response to the absence of a global certification program for Cr assays. It offers significant advantages, including comprehensive evaluations, fee-free participation, and a robust post-certification process. Continuous participation and improvement efforts by manufacturers have contributed to enhanced accuracy in Cr assays.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail