Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global health challenge that is frequently complicated by psychiatric comorbidities, which can worsen disease outcomes and quality of life. Accurate prevalence estimates are essential to inform integrated management strategies. Objective: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the prevalence and patterns of psychiatric comorbidities in individuals with T2DM. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies included full-text, peer-reviewed articles reporting psychiatric comorbidities in adults with T2DM. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using a random effects model, with heterogeneity assessed using the I ² statistic. The search was updated through July 2025. Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of depression in adults with T2DM was 19% (95% CI: 14–24%), based on eight contributing studies. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was also frequently observed, with a pooled prevalence of 39% (95% CI: 23–59%) across four studies. Considerable variability among studies was evident, likely attributable to differences in study design, diagnostic methods, sampling frames, and population characteristics. Conclusion: Psychiatric comorbidities are highly prevalent in individuals with T2DM, particularly depression and cognitive impairment, emphasizing the need for integrated psychiatric and metabolic care. This meta-analysis demonstrates that psychiatric comorbidities, particularly depression and cognitive impairment, are common in individuals with T2DM, highlighting the need for routine psychiatric screening and integrated diabetes care.

Background: Evidence for neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) in primary bone sarcoma is dominated by osteosarcoma and has been affected by inconsistent endpoint and effect-size extraction. We re-extracted eligible estimates from the primary reports and evaluated their independent prognostic associations. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for cohort studies reporting pretreatment NLR, PLR, or LMR in primary bone sarcoma. The primary analysis required clinically multivariable-adjusted, categorical high-versus-low hazard ratios (HRs). Overall survival (OS) was analyzed separately from progression-free survival (PFS), disease-free survival (DFS), event-free survival (EFS), and disease-specific mortality. Random-effects models used restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation and Hartung-Knapp confidence intervals. Histology- and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)-based subgroup analyses were prespecified when at least two studies were available. Results: Ten studies remained in the systematic review, and nine contributed at least one source-verifiable endpoint-specific adjusted estimate to quantitative synthesis. Seven NLR-OS cohorts yielded a pooled HR of 1.64 (95% CI 1.15–2.33; I² = 81.4%). The osteosarcoma-only subgroup remained significant (five cohorts; HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03–2.81; I² = 86.6%). Excluding Huang X 2019 from the strict dataset yielded HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.44–2.36; I² = 0%); the reviewer-specified comparison against the previous eight-estimate set, retaining Yang Q 2020 only as a source-reported sensitivity input, yielded HR 1.90 (95% CI 1.47–2.45; I² = 5.9%). PLR was not associated with OS (four cohorts; HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67–1.72; I² = 56.0%). LMR showed a non-significant protective trend (three cohorts; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38–1.27; I² = 0%). Conclusions: Higher pretreatment NLR is associated with poorer OS, including in the strict osteosarcoma-only analysis. The direction remained stable in every leave-one-out analysis, while the marked reduction in heterogeneity after excluding Huang X 2019 identifies one dominant statistical influence. Retrospective designs and residual heterogeneity limit clinical application. PLR and LMR findings remain inconclusive, and whether NLR-guided management improves outcomes is untested.

Background: Population-level data on palliative care need remain limited in many regions. Cancer mortality is commonly used as a proxy indicator of population-level palliative care demand. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have undergone rapid demographic and epidemiological transition, highlighting the need for evidence-informed planning. Objectives: To examine long-term trends in cancer mortality across six GCC countries (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman) and assess implications for palliative care planning. Design: Ecological time-trend analysis. Setting/Subjects: National mortality data from six GCC countries (2000–2022). Measurements: Age-standardized cancer mortality rates (ICD-10 C00–C97) were obtained from the World Health Organization Global Health Observatory. Trends were evaluated using annual percentage change estimates, segmented (joinpoint) regression, and models accounting for between-country variability. Results: Data availability varied substantially across countries. Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar had sufficient longitudinal data and demonstrated statistically significant declines in age-standardized cancer mortality ( p < 0.001), with the largest reduction observed in Bahrain. Nonlinear, phase-dependent trends were identified. Countries with limited data were analyzed descriptively. Conclusions: Cancer mortality trends in GCC countries vary according to data completeness. Declining mortality does not necessarily indicate reduced palliative care need. Cancer mortality remains a pragmatic population-level indicator for planning in settings with limited direct measures of need. Strengthening mortality surveillance and integrating palliative care into national cancer control strategies are essential.