The incidence rate of cervical cancer in Korea is still higher than in other developed countries, notwithstanding the national mass-screening program. Furthermore, a new method has been introduced in cervical cancer screening. Therefore, the committee for cervical cancer screening in Korea updated the recommendation statement established in 2002. The new version of the guideline was developed by the committee using evidence-based methods. The committee reviewed the evidence for the benefits and harms of the Papanicolaou test, liquid-based cytology, and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, and reached conclusions after deliberation. The committee recommends screening for cervical cancer with cytology (Papanicolaou test or liquid-based cytology) every three years in women older than 20 years of age (recommendation A). The cervical cytology combined with HPV test is optionally recommended after taking into consideration individual risk or preference (recommendation C). The current evidence for primary HPV screening is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening (recommendation I). Cervical cancer screening can be terminated at the age of 74 years if more than three consecutive negative cytology reports have been confirmed within 10 years (recommendation D).

No abstract

Background While many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that support from individual partners, family members, or ‘buddies’ may encourage abstinence. Objectives To determine if an intervention to enhance one-to-one partner support for smokers attempting to quit improves smoking cessation outcomes, compared with cessation interventions lacking a partner-support component. Search methods We limited the search to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, which was updated in April 2018. This includes the results of searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (via OVID); Embase (via OVID); and PsycINFO (via OVID). The search terms used were smoking (prevention, control, therapy), smoking cessation and support (family, marriage, spouse, partner, sexual partner, buddy, friend, cohabitant and co-worker). We also reviewed the bibliographies of all included articles for additional trials. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials recruiting people who smoked. Trials were eligible if they had at least one treatment arm that included a smoking cessation intervention with a partner-support component, compared to a control condition providing behavioural support of similar intensity, without a partner-support component. Trials were also required to report smoking cessation at six months follow-up or more. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the included studies from the search results, and extracted data using a structured form. A third review author helped resolve discrepancies, in line with standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Smoking abstinence, biochemically verified where possible, was the primary outcome measure and was extracted at two post-treatment intervals where possible: at six to nine months and at 12 months or longer. We used a random-effects model to pool risk ratios from each study and estimate a summary effect. Main results Our update search identified 465 citations, which we assessed for eligibility. Three new studies met the criteria for inclusion, giving a total of 14 included studies (n = 3370). The definition of partner varied among the studies. We compared partner support versus control interventions at six- to nine-month follow-up and at 12 or more months follow-up. We also examined outcomes among three subgroups: interventions targeting relatives, friends or coworkers; interventions targeting spouses or cohabiting partners; and interventions targeting fellow cessation programme participants. All studies gave self-reported smoking cessation rates, with limited biochemical verification of abstinence. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for abstinence was 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.14; 12 studies; 2818 participants) at six to nine months, and 1.04 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.22; 7 studies; 2573 participants) at 12 months or more post-treatment. Of the 11 studies that measured partner support at follow-up, only two rep...

BackgroundTo compare the prevalence and metabolic characteristics of metabolically healthy but obese (MHO) individuals according to different criteria.MethodsWe examined 186 MHO middle-aged men (age, 37.2 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m2). The following methods were used to determine MHO: the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III criteria, 0-2 cardiometabolic abnormalities; the Wildman criteria, 0-1 cardiometabolic abnormalities; the Karelis criteria, 0-1 cardiometabolic abnormalities; the homeostasis model assessment [HOMA] criteria (lowest quartile of HOMA). After dividing the overall subjects into two age groups, we compared the prevalence and clinical characteristics between MHO and at-risk groups according to four different criteria.ResultsThe prevalence of MHO using the NCEP, Wildman, Kaleris, and HOMA criteria were 70.4%, 59.7%, 28.5%, and 24.2%, respectively. The agreement between the groups according to the NCEP and Wildman criteria was substantial (kappa = 0.8, P < 0.001). Among individuals 35 years or younger, and regardless of method, the MHO subjects had significantly lower weight, waist circumference, BMI, body fat percentage, insulin, HOMA, alanine aminotransferase, triglyceride (TG), and TG/high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio than the at-risk subjects (P < 0.05); However, among individuals older than 35 years old, and regardless of method, the MHO subjects had different insulin, HOMA, HDL-C, and TG/HDL-C levels than the at-risk subjects (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe differences in metabolic profile between MHO and at-risk groups varied according to age. MHO prevalence varies considerably according to the criteria employed. Expert consensus is needed in order to define a standardized protocol for determining MHO.

BackgroundWhile many cessation programmes are available to assist smokers in quitting, research suggests that partner involvement may encourage long-term abstinence. ObjectivesThe purpose of this review was to determine if an intervention to enhance partner support helps smoking cessation when added as an adjunct to a smoking cessation programme.