Background/Aims: Findings on the impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on metabolic parameters are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of H. pylori eradication on metabolic parameters and body composition, including body fat mass and skeletal muscle mass. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of asymptomatic patients who underwent health screenings, including bioelectrical impedance analysis, before and after H. pylori eradication between 2005 and 2021. After matching individuals based on key factors, we compared lipid profiles, metabolic parameters, and body composition between 823 patients from the eradicated group and 823 patients from the non-eradicated groups. Results: Blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin values were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the non-eradicated group. However, changes in body mass index (BMI), body fat mass, appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), waist circumference, and lipid profiles were not significantly different between the two groups. In a subgroup analysis of individuals aged >45 years, blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin changes were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group. BMI values were significantly higher in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group; however, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding changes in body weight, body fat mass, ASM, or waist circumference. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in non-eradicated group. Conclusions H. pylori eradication significantly reduced blood pressure, glucose levels, and systemic inflammation and improved lipid profiles in patients aged >45 years. BMI, body fat mass, ASM, and waist circumference did not significantly differ between patients in the eradicated group and those in the non-eradicated group.

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/Aims: Findings on the impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on metabolic parameters are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of H. pylori eradication on metabolic parameters and body composition, including body fat mass and skeletal muscle mass. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of asymptomatic patients who underwent health screenings, including bioelectrical impedance analysis, before and after H. pylori eradication between 2005 and 2021. After matching individuals based on key factors, we compared lipid profiles, metabolic parameters, and body composition between 823 patients from the eradicated group and 823 patients from the non-eradicated groups. Results: Blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin values were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the non-eradicated group. However, changes in body mass index (BMI), body fat mass, appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), waist circumference, and lipid profiles were not significantly different between the two groups. In a subgroup analysis of individuals aged >45 years, blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin changes were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group. BMI values were significantly higher in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group; however, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding changes in body weight, body fat mass, ASM, or waist circumference. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in non-eradicated group. Conclusions H. pylori eradication significantly reduced blood pressure, glucose levels, and systemic inflammation and improved lipid profiles in patients aged >45 years. BMI, body fat mass, ASM, and waist circumference did not significantly differ between patients in the eradicated group and those in the non-eradicated group.

Background/Aims: Findings on the impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on metabolic parameters are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of H. pylori eradication on metabolic parameters and body composition, including body fat mass and skeletal muscle mass. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of asymptomatic patients who underwent health screenings, including bioelectrical impedance analysis, before and after H. pylori eradication between 2005 and 2021. After matching individuals based on key factors, we compared lipid profiles, metabolic parameters, and body composition between 823 patients from the eradicated group and 823 patients from the non-eradicated groups. Results: Blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin values were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the non-eradicated group. However, changes in body mass index (BMI), body fat mass, appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), waist circumference, and lipid profiles were not significantly different between the two groups. In a subgroup analysis of individuals aged >45 years, blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin changes were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group. BMI values were significantly higher in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group; however, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding changes in body weight, body fat mass, ASM, or waist circumference. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in non-eradicated group. Conclusions H. pylori eradication significantly reduced blood pressure, glucose levels, and systemic inflammation and improved lipid profiles in patients aged >45 years. BMI, body fat mass, ASM, and waist circumference did not significantly differ between patients in the eradicated group and those in the non-eradicated group.

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/Aims: Findings on the impact of Helicobacter pylori eradication on metabolic parameters are inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of H. pylori eradication on metabolic parameters and body composition, including body fat mass and skeletal muscle mass. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of asymptomatic patients who underwent health screenings, including bioelectrical impedance analysis, before and after H. pylori eradication between 2005 and 2021. After matching individuals based on key factors, we compared lipid profiles, metabolic parameters, and body composition between 823 patients from the eradicated group and 823 patients from the non-eradicated groups. Results: Blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin values were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the non-eradicated group. However, changes in body mass index (BMI), body fat mass, appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM), waist circumference, and lipid profiles were not significantly different between the two groups. In a subgroup analysis of individuals aged >45 years, blood pressure, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and glycated hemoglobin changes were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group. BMI values were significantly higher in the eradicated group than in the noneradicated group; however, no significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding changes in body weight, body fat mass, ASM, or waist circumference. Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were significantly lower in the eradicated group than in non-eradicated group. Conclusions H. pylori eradication significantly reduced blood pressure, glucose levels, and systemic inflammation and improved lipid profiles in patients aged >45 years. BMI, body fat mass, ASM, and waist circumference did not significantly differ between patients in the eradicated group and those in the non-eradicated group.

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 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.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a Korean Adult Patients Delirium Screening Tool (K-APDS) for those admitted to general wards, and to verify its reliability and validity. Methods: For the development of the tool, 12 items were derived through the results of literature review and focus group interviews with general ward nurses, and the content validity was confirmed by experts. To verify the reliability and validity of the developed tool, 317 adult patients who were admitted to general wards of three tertiary general hospitals from October to November 2022 were evaluated by the attending nurse and data were collected. Results: After factor analysis for construct validity verification, two factors were extracted, which explained 60.1% of the total variance. After the validation of the control group, the difference in the delirium incidence scores calculated using the K-APDS between the delirium group and non-delirium group was very significant (Z=-10.82, p<.001).To verify the criterion validity, K-APDS, Delirium Observation Screening, and Pearson's correlation coefficient were checked and found to be .94 (p<.001). The predictive validity test reported that the sensitivity was 91.1%, specificity was 82.4%, positive predictive value was 52.6%, and negative predictive value was 97.8%. The reliability of K-APDS was found to be high with Cronbach’s ⍺=.91. Conclusion K-APDS can screen for delirium with 2 or more points, excellent validity and reliability have been verified. Therefore, this tool could be applied immediately in the clinical field, and will contribute to the early detection of delirium, enabling rapid interventions.

Objective: It is essential to measure the effect of burnout on doctors because burnout can affect doctors’ mental health as well as the functioning of medical practice. This study aims to validate a Korean version of the single-item burnout measure (SIBM), which was developed to quickly measure the level of burnout among doctors. Methods: Through an online survey, a self-report questionnaire was administered to 324 public health doctors in Korea. The Korean version of the SIBM was validated against the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) screening tool, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the Vaccination Attitudes Examination (VAX) scale. Pearson correlation coefficients and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine the association between the SIBM and other scales. ANOVA was additionally used to determine the associations between the subscales of the MBI-GS and those of the SIBM. Results: The correlation coefficient between the SIBM and the MBI-GS, PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PSS was positive (p<0.01), and the correlation coefficient between the SIBM and the VAX scale was not significant. Therefore, convergent and discriminant validity was verified. Exhaustion and cynicism, which were correlated with the SIBM, with r2=0.43 (p<0.01) and 0.48 (p<0.01), yielded R2 scores of 0.27 (p<0.01) and 0.20 (p<0.01) in ANOVA. Conclusion The Korean version of the SIBM is an appropriate screening tool for burnout. It can be evaluated in a short time, thereby enhancing continuous follow-up observations and response rates to burnout.