Meta-analysis of Cognitive Function Following Non-severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

IF 5.4 2区 心理学 Q1 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychology Review Pub Date : 2024-06-12 DOI:10.1007/s11065-024-09642-6
Tara A Austin, Michael L Thomas, Min Lu, Cooper B Hodges, Emily S Darowski, Rachel Bergmans, Sarah Parr, Delaney Pickell, Mikayla Catazaro, Crystal Lantrip, Elizabeth W Twamley
{"title":"Meta-analysis of Cognitive Function Following Non-severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.","authors":"Tara A Austin, Michael L Thomas, Min Lu, Cooper B Hodges, Emily S Darowski, Rachel Bergmans, Sarah Parr, Delaney Pickell, Mikayla Catazaro, Crystal Lantrip, Elizabeth W Twamley","doi":"10.1007/s11065-024-09642-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To effectively diagnose and treat subjective cognitive symptoms in post-acute sequalae of COVID-19 (PASC), it is important to understand objective cognitive impairment across the range of acute COVID-19 severity. Despite the importance of this area of research, to our knowledge, there are no current meta-analyses of objective cognitive functioning following non-severe initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this meta-analysis is to describe objective cognitive impairment in individuals with non-severe (mild or moderate) SARS-CoV-2 cases in the post-acute stage of infection. This meta-analysis was pre-registered with Prospero (CRD42021293124) and utilized the PRISMA checklist for reporting guidelines, with screening conducted by at least two independent reviewers for all aspects of the screening and data extraction process. Fifty-nine articles (total participants = 22,060) with three types of study designs met our full criteria. Individuals with non-severe (mild/moderate) initial SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrated worse objective cognitive performance compared to healthy comparison participants. However, those with mild (nonhospitalized) initial SARS-CoV-2 infections had better objective cognitive performance than those with moderate (hospitalized but not requiring ICU care) or severe (hospitalized with ICU care) initial SARS-CoV-2 infections. For studies that used normative data comparisons instead of healthy comparison participants, there was a small and nearly significant effect when compared to normative data. There were high levels of heterogeneity (88.6 to 97.3%), likely reflecting small sample sizes and variations in primary study methodology. Individuals who have recovered from non-severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections may be at risk for cognitive decline or impairment and may benefit from cognitive health interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":49754,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-024-09642-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To effectively diagnose and treat subjective cognitive symptoms in post-acute sequalae of COVID-19 (PASC), it is important to understand objective cognitive impairment across the range of acute COVID-19 severity. Despite the importance of this area of research, to our knowledge, there are no current meta-analyses of objective cognitive functioning following non-severe initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this meta-analysis is to describe objective cognitive impairment in individuals with non-severe (mild or moderate) SARS-CoV-2 cases in the post-acute stage of infection. This meta-analysis was pre-registered with Prospero (CRD42021293124) and utilized the PRISMA checklist for reporting guidelines, with screening conducted by at least two independent reviewers for all aspects of the screening and data extraction process. Fifty-nine articles (total participants = 22,060) with three types of study designs met our full criteria. Individuals with non-severe (mild/moderate) initial SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrated worse objective cognitive performance compared to healthy comparison participants. However, those with mild (nonhospitalized) initial SARS-CoV-2 infections had better objective cognitive performance than those with moderate (hospitalized but not requiring ICU care) or severe (hospitalized with ICU care) initial SARS-CoV-2 infections. For studies that used normative data comparisons instead of healthy comparison participants, there was a small and nearly significant effect when compared to normative data. There were high levels of heterogeneity (88.6 to 97.3%), likely reflecting small sample sizes and variations in primary study methodology. Individuals who have recovered from non-severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections may be at risk for cognitive decline or impairment and may benefit from cognitive health interventions.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非严重 SARS-CoV-2 感染后认知功能的元分析。
为了有效诊断和治疗 COVID-19 急性后遗症(PASC)中的主观认知症状,了解 COVID-19 急性后遗症严重程度范围内的客观认知功能障碍非常重要。尽管这一研究领域非常重要,但据我们所知,目前还没有关于非严重的初始 SARS-CoV-2 感染后客观认知功能的荟萃分析。本荟萃分析旨在描述非重度(轻度或中度)SARS-CoV-2 感染病例在急性期后的客观认知功能障碍。本荟萃分析已在 Prospero(CRD42021293124)上进行了预先注册,并采用了 PRISMA 报告指南核对表,在筛选和数据提取过程的各个方面均由至少两名独立审稿人进行筛选。有 59 篇文章(总参与人数 = 22,060 人)的三种研究设计符合我们的全部标准。与健康的对比参与者相比,非重度(轻度/中度)初始 SARS-CoV-2 感染者的客观认知表现较差。然而,与中度(住院但不需要重症监护室护理)或重度(住院并接受重症监护室护理)SARS-CoV-2 初次感染者相比,轻度(未住院)SARS-CoV-2 初次感染者的客观认知能力更强。对于使用常模数据而非健康对比参与者进行对比的研究,与常模数据相比,存在微小但几乎显著的影响。异质性很高(88.6% 到 97.3%),这可能反映了样本量小和主要研究方法的差异。从非严重的 SARS-CoV-2 感染病例中康复的人可能面临认知能力下降或受损的风险,并可能从认知健康干预中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychology Review
Neuropsychology Review 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
1.70%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Neuropsychology Review is a quarterly, refereed publication devoted to integrative review papers on substantive content areas in neuropsychology, with particular focus on populations with endogenous or acquired conditions affecting brain and function and on translational research providing a mechanistic understanding of clinical problems. Publication of new data is not the purview of the journal. Articles are written by international specialists in the field, discussing such complex issues as distinctive functional features of central nervous system disease and injury; challenges in early diagnosis; the impact of genes and environment on function; risk factors for functional impairment; treatment efficacy of neuropsychological rehabilitation; the role of neuroimaging, neuroelectrophysiology, and other neurometric modalities in explicating function; clinical trial design; neuropsychological function and its substrates characteristic of normal development and aging; and neuropsychological dysfunction and its substrates in neurological, psychiatric, and medical conditions. The journal''s broad perspective is supported by an outstanding, multidisciplinary editorial review board guided by the aim to provide students and professionals, clinicians and researchers with scholarly articles that critically and objectively summarize and synthesize the strengths and weaknesses in the literature and propose novel hypotheses, methods of analysis, and links to other fields.
期刊最新文献
Verbal and Spatial Working Memory Capacity in Blind Adults and the Possible Influence of Age at Blindness Onset: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Reliability of Theory of Mind Tasks in Schizophrenia, ASD, and Nonclinical Populations: A Systematic Review and Reliability Generalization Meta-analysis. Not All Stroop-Type Tasks Are Alike: Assessing the Impact of Stimulus Material, Task Design, and Cognitive Demand via Meta-analyses Across Neuroimaging Studies Cognitive Training During Midlife: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gradient Organization of Space, Time, and Numbers in the Brain: A Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1