Proposes revisions to improve anatomical clarity in KS P 3010:2024, suggesting a need for standardization and precision.
Objectives : This study aims to propose systematic revisions to the Korean Standard for Acupuncture Point Locations (KS P 3010:2024) by assessing its anatomical clarity and formatting consistency in comparison with the WHO Standard Acupuncture Point Locations (WHO Standard) and the Anatomical Terminology (6th edition).Methods : Location descriptions for 361 standard acupuncture points in KS P 3010:2024 were extracted and systematically compared with the WHO Standard and the Anatomical Terminology (6th edition).To reduce subjective bias, all identified discrepancies were independently cross-validated by the researchers.Proposed revisions were classified into two categories-anatomical clarity and format/notation consistency-and analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results : A total of 312 revisions were identified across 361 acupuncture points.Revisions related to 'anatomical clarity' accounted for 78.8% (246 cases), primarily involving anatomical term replacements (182 cases, 58.3%) and location or direction refinements (64 cases, 20.5%).The 'format and notation consistency' category comprised 21.2% (66 cases), mainly involving corrections to the identification numbers of adjacent points (33 cases, 10.6%), along with translation refinements and corrections of content mismatches.Conclusions : Through a systematic comparison with WHO Standard and Anatomical Terminology, this study identified 312 specific items requirng revision within KS P 3010:2024.The findings indicate a need for revisions to improve anatomical clarity and descriptive precision, mainly by standardizing anatomical terms and refining location descriptions.In addition, inconsistencies in formatting and notation-including errors in adjacent point identification numbers and translational discrepancies-should be addressed.The revisions proposed in this study provide a concrete framework to enhance the reliability of national standards, ensuring their effective integration into both academic education and digital healthcare industries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sung et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: