The present study was designed to determine the association between Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scale and elevated pressure injure (PI) risk in intensive care units (ICU) and also evaluate the predictive value of APACHE score in PI patients. Comprehensive strategies were used to search studies from PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase electronic databases for observational studies that provided data about APACHE scores related to PI in ICU. Eligible studies were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The pooled SMD with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. A summary ROC curve was plotted to calculate area under curve (AUC) for APACHE-II (15-20). Twenty-one studies involving 11,102 patients who met selection criteria were included. The 11.0% of patients (1229/11102) in ICU developed PIs. Overall, the PI group had a higher score compared with the non-PI group in the APACHE II (22.1 ± 8.0 vs. 14.5 ± 7.4, mean ± SD). The APACHE-III of PI patients was significantly more than that in the non-PI group (79.9 ± 25.6 vs. 59.9 ± 30.4, mean ± SD). The pooled SMD was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.58-1.06, I 2 = 91.7%, p-value < 0.001). The subgroup analysis revealed that the risk of PIs did not vary with the type of APACHE score (II, III, IV) and the type of study design (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort, longitudinal study). Proportion of males (I 2 = 91.68%, p value = 0.090), publish year (I 2 = 91.96%, p value = 0.187) and mean age of patients (I 2 = 91.96%, p value = 0.937) were not the sources of heterogeneity. APACHE-II (15-20) achieves the best predictive performance in PI, and the prediction accuracy was balanced with equal sensitivity and specificity (Sen: 0.72, 0.62-0.80; Spec: 1.72, 1.25-2.38). In conclusion, higher APACHE scores are frequently accompanied by a higher incidence of PI among critical-care patients. APACHE-II scores (15-20) satisfactorily predicted PI, and strategies to prevent PI should be aggressively implemented.

Objective: Although excess mortality, especially suicide, is a critical trait in people living with HIV, consensus about gender differences in these areas is lacking. We conducted meta-analyses to examine gender differences in suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide death among people living with HIV.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies written in English. In this review, suicide among people living with HIV includes suicide death, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts. Studies reporting the suicide prevalence among males and females living with HIV were eligible for inclusion in our review. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) served as the effect size index. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analyses were chosen based on the size of the heterogeneity. Results: A total of 27 studies comprising 801 017 participants from 11 countries were included in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of suicidal ideation was 18.0% (95% CI 13.3%-22.8%) in males and 20.8% (95% CI 16.4%-25.1%) in females, and there was a statistically significant higher risk of suicidal ideation in females living with HIV (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.09-1.56; p < 0.05). The overall prevalence of suicide attempts was 16.8% (95% CI 9.0%-24.5%) in males and 24.7% (95% CI 12.4%-37.1%) in females, and there was a statistically significant higher risk of suicide attempts in females living with HIV (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.02-1.75; p < 0.05).The pooled prevalence of suicide death was 1.2% (95% CI 0.5%-1.9%) among males and 0.2% (95% CI 0.1%-0.3%) among females, and the risk of suicide death between genders was not statistically significant (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.50-1.24; p = 0.298).Conclusions: There were gender differences in suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among people living with HIV. Females living with HIV were more likely to experience suicidal ideation and make suicide attempts, but there were no statistically significant gender differences in suicide death. Appropriate initiatives to optimize the recognition, treatment, and management suicide behaviours of males and females living with HIV may narrow this gender gap.

BackgroundDuring the COVID‐19 epidemic, palliative care has become even more indispensable for cancer patients.AimTo identify the changes in palliative care for cancer patients and improvements in palliative care quality during the COVID‐19 pandemic.DesignA systematic review and narrative synthesis was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. An evaluation tool using mixed methods was used to assess the quality of the study. The main relevant themes identified were used to group qualitative and quantitative findings.ResultsA total of 36 studies were identified, primarily from different countries, with a total of 14,427 patients, 238 caregivers and 354 health care providers. Cancer palliative care has been experiencing several difficulties following the COVID‐19 pandemic, including increased mortality and infection rates as well as delays in patient treatment that have resulted in poorer prognoses. Treatment providers are seeking solutions such as electronic management of patients and integration of resources to care for the mental health of patients and staff. Telemedicine plays an important role in many ways but cannot completely replace traditional treatment. Clinicians strive to meet patients' palliative care needs during special times and improve their quality of life.ConclusionsPalliative care faces unique challenges during the COVID‐19 epidemic. With adequate support to alleviate care‐related challenges, patients in the home versus hospital setting will be able to receive better palliative care. In addition, this review highlights the importance of multiparty collaboration to achieve personal and societal benefits of palliative care.Patient or Public ContributionNo Patient or Public Contribution.