Limited data are available regarding the in vitro activity of SPR719, a derivative of benzimidazole, against diverse nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) species. We investigated the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of SPR719 against clinical NTM isolates, including clarithromycin- and amikacin-resistant strains. NTM isolates were obtained from patients with NTM-pulmonary disease caused by various NTM species, including Mycobacterium avium complex, M. abscessus (subspecies abscessus and massiliense), M. kansasii, and M. fortuitum. Regardless of clarithromycin or amikacin resistance, the MIC and MBC values of SPR719 were comparable among these major pathogenic NTM species. In over 70% of the isolates, the MIC values were ≤ 2 µg/mL with MBC values of ≤ 4 µg/mL. The MIC and MBC values of M. kansasii were relatively lower than those of the other species with little difference between them, demonstrating the bactericidal properties of SPR719. The in vitro activity of SPR719 against major clinical NTM species suggests that SPR719 can serve as a novel treatment option for NTM-pulmonary disease.

Objective: To evaluate the completeness of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in a general radiology journal using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four articles (systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 18; systematic review only, n = 6) published between August 2009 and September 2021 in the Korean Journal of Radiology were analyzed. Completeness of the reporting of main texts and abstracts were evaluated using the PRISMA 2020 statement. For each item in the statement, the proportion of studies that met the guidelines’ recommendation was calculated and items that were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the studies were identified. The review process was conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Of the 42 items (including sub-items) in the PRISMA 2020 statement for main text, 24 were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the included articles. The 24 items were grouped into eight domains: 1) assessment of the eligibility of potential articles, 2) assessment of the risk of bias, 3) synthesis of results, 4) additional analysis of study heterogeneity, 5) assessment of non-reporting bias, 6) assessment of the certainty of evidence, 7) provision of limitations of the study, and 8) additional information, such as protocol registration. Of the 12 items in the abstract checklists, eight were incorporated in fewer than 80% of the included publications. Conclusion Several items included in the PRISMA 2020 checklist were overlooked in systematic review and meta-analysis articles published in the Korean Journal of Radiology. Based on these results, we suggest a double-check list for improving the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors and reviewers should familiarize themselves with the PRISMA 2020 statement and check whether the recommended items are fully satisfied prior to publication.

These guidelines were developed as a part of the 2021 Academic R&D Service Project of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency in response to requests from healthcare professionals in clinical practice for guidance on developing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). These guidelines were developed by means of a systematic literature review and a summary of recent literature, in which evidence-based intervention methods were used to address key questions about the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents and ASP expansion. These guidelines also provide evidence of the effectiveness of ASPs and describe intervention methods applicable in Korea.

These guidelines were developed as a part of the 2021 Academic R&D Service Project of the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency in response to requests from healthcare professionals in clinical practice for guidance on developing antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). These guidelines were developed by means of a systematic literature review and a summary of recent literature, in which evidence-based intervention methods were used to address key questions about the appropriate use of antimicrobial agents and ASP expansion. These guidelines also provide evidence of the effectiveness of ASPs and describe intervention methods applicable in Korea.

Objective: The purpose was to review the diagnostic performance of the length of tumor capsular contact (LCC) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting prostate cancer extraprostatic extension (EPE). Materials and Methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up to March 24, 2019. We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated LCC on MRI for EPE detection using radical prostatectomy specimen histopathology as the reference standard. Quality of studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled and graphically presented using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) plots. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity. Results: Thirteen articles with 2136 patients were included. Study quality was generally good. Summary sensitivity and specificity were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73–0.83) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.60–0.74), respectively. Area under the HSROC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77–0.84). Substantial heterogeneity was present among the included studies according to Cochran’s Q-test (p < 0.01) and Higgins I2 (62% and 86% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, measurement method (curvilinear vs. linear), prevalence of Gleason score ≥ 7, MRI readers’ experience, and endorectal coils were significant factors (p ≤ 0.01), whereas method to determine the LCC threshold, cutoff value, magnet strength, and publication year were not (p = 0.14–0.93). Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were comparable across all assessed MRI sequences. Conclusion Greater LCC on MRI is associated with a higher probability of prostate cancer EPE. Due to heterogeneity among the studies, further investigation is needed to establish the optimal cutoff value for each clinical setting.