Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) is an approach that utilizes the best evidence for patient care, and its importance is growing in various fields to improve patient-centered care. However, the Evidence-Practice Gap (EPG) that occurs in the practical application of EBP remains a significant problem. EPG refers to the gap between research results and actual clinical practice, which can hinder the optimization of patient care and lead to inefficiencies in the healthcare system. This review introduces the concepts of EBP and EPG and examines educational approaches such as Sicilian statements and Core Competencies in Evidence-Based Practice. In addition, we discuss translational research, knowledge transfer, multidisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-based policymaking, which are key efforts to resolve EPG. In addition, we emphasize the importance of setting research directions using the Evidence Gap Map (EGM) along with national strategies to promote the spread of EBP. This paper discusses how strategic approaches and policy efforts to resolve the EPG can contribute to the actual clinical application of EBP, and suggests future research directions.

Background
In the case of clinical practice guideline (CPG), the need for the prospective registration of protocols has been proposed several times. However, the registration of CPG protocols is not yet active. The objective of this study was to summarize the experience of the CPG protocol registration program in Korea.
Methods
This study was performed in the following order: 1) formation of a methodological expert group; 2) CPG protocol template development; 3) CPG protocol preparation and expert review; 4) exploration of the knowledge and attitude of the guideline developers toward CPG protocol.
Results
The final version of the CPG protocol templates consists of four parts (planning, development, finalization, and timetable). The protocols for 18 cancers were submitted by 14 medical societies. conflicts of interest (n = 14, 77.8%), guideline development group (GDG; n = 9, 50%), scope of CPG (n = 9, 50%), and key questions (n = 8, 44.4%) were the under-reported areas in the submitted protocols. The GDGs (n = 13, 72.7%) was the most misreported areas of the protocol. CPG developers generally agreed on the advantages of protocol registration but responded that it was difficult to understand the concepts in the protocol and fill them with appropriate content. The areas where CPG developers responded that they felt difficulty were were recommendation grade (n = 9, 75.0%), GDG composition (n = 7, 58.3%), and determining key questions (n = 7, 58.3%).
Conclusions
The CPG protocol registration program was planned and piloted in Korea, and it could be said that it is feasible. It is necessary to evaluate the developed CPG later and determine whether protocol registration affects the quality of CPG through indices such as transparency and clarity of CPG.