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":" ","pages":""},"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.
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.