J Neurol Neurocrit Care, Volume 4(2): 1–2, 2021 The neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD and autism are among the most important diagnoses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and are also important diagnoses in adult psychiatry [1]. The prevalence of diagnosed ADHD varies considerably between countries and regions and one region can report more than twice the prevalence in another region [2,3]. ADHD and autism have been found to have very high heritabilities which implies that environmental factors, although of importance, are not completely decisive for the prevalence of these conditions [4,5]. Studies of ADHD in different countries have shown approximately the same prevalence when using the same strict criteria [6]. The prevalence of ADHD in childhood has been estimated to be in the order of 5 to 6% [7].
{"title":"The Controversies Concerning the Prevalence of the Neurodevelopmental Conditions ADHD and Autism","authors":"P. Gustafsson","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2021421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2021421","url":null,"abstract":"J Neurol Neurocrit Care, Volume 4(2): 1–2, 2021 The neurodevelopmental disorders ADHD and autism are among the most important diagnoses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and are also important diagnoses in adult psychiatry [1]. The prevalence of diagnosed ADHD varies considerably between countries and regions and one region can report more than twice the prevalence in another region [2,3]. ADHD and autism have been found to have very high heritabilities which implies that environmental factors, although of importance, are not completely decisive for the prevalence of these conditions [4,5]. Studies of ADHD in different countries have shown approximately the same prevalence when using the same strict criteria [6]. The prevalence of ADHD in childhood has been estimated to be in the order of 5 to 6% [7].","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124949443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The “complex regional pain syndrome” (CRPS) is characterized by continued pain, debilitating affliction, sensory abnormalities, vaso- and sudomotor disturbances as well as trophic changes. CRPS is often difficult to treat. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a measure to provide adequate pain relief, improve the quality of life and physical function has been employed for that purpose. The sensory profile of the patients with CRPS, including sensory signs: hyperalgesia, allodynia, or hypoesthesia may be linked with the damage and surviving afferent nerve fibres, ectopic impulse generation, peripheral and central sensitization. For comprehensive assessing, the sensory profiles of a patient and results of treatment were verified with quantitative sensory testing (QST) in accordance with the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS).
{"title":"Quantitative Sensory Testing to Assessment Objective Changes by Spinal Cord Stimulation In-Patient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome","authors":"Nino Ninidze, S. Sator-Katzenschlager","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2021413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2021413","url":null,"abstract":"The “complex regional pain syndrome” (CRPS) is characterized by continued pain, debilitating affliction, sensory abnormalities, vaso- and sudomotor disturbances as well as trophic changes. CRPS is often difficult to treat. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a measure to provide adequate pain relief, improve the quality of life and physical function has been employed for that purpose. The sensory profile of the patients with CRPS, including sensory signs: hyperalgesia, allodynia, or hypoesthesia may be linked with the damage and surviving afferent nerve fibres, ectopic impulse generation, peripheral and central sensitization. For comprehensive assessing, the sensory profiles of a patient and results of treatment were verified with quantitative sensory testing (QST) in accordance with the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS).","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130729809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
F. Tallón, Silvia Menéndez-Cepero, J. Baeza-Noci, G. Carrasco
Due to the extreme world situation caused by COVID19 pandemic we consider unethic not to try any treatment option with a justified rationale. We have explained that medical ozone therapy has a clear scientific basement thanks to all preclinical investigation already published. It can be classified as chemical stressor that produces a modulation of the redox balance and immunity. Moreover, it is easy and safe to administer [1]. The efficacy in viral diseases have been published together the modulation of IL-6 and other proinflammatory cytokines that could potentially help in COVID19 patients. We proposed to carry out a randomized control trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of systemic ozone (indirect endovenous and rectal) in these patients.
{"title":"Theoretical Basements for a Clinical Trial on COVID-19 Patients with Systemic Ozone Therapy","authors":"F. Tallón, Silvia Menéndez-Cepero, J. Baeza-Noci, G. Carrasco","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2021411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2021411","url":null,"abstract":"Due to the extreme world situation caused by COVID19 pandemic we consider unethic not to try any treatment option with a justified rationale. We have explained that medical ozone therapy has a clear scientific basement thanks to all preclinical investigation already published. It can be classified as chemical stressor that produces a modulation of the redox balance and immunity. Moreover, it is easy and safe to administer [1]. The efficacy in viral diseases have been published together the modulation of IL-6 and other proinflammatory cytokines that could potentially help in COVID19 patients. We proposed to carry out a randomized control trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of systemic ozone (indirect endovenous and rectal) in these patients.","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133599854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J Neurol Neurocrit Care, Volume 3(4): 1–1, 2020 In a recent paper, Polack et al. [1], who are members of the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group, stated that the Pfizer vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is 95% effective. The Clinical Trial Group and their paper are funded by BioNTech and Pfizer. The statement that the mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 manufactured by Pfizer and Modern are 95% effective has been made countless times in the media and by the heads of the CDC and NIAID and other physicians and public health authorities. But what does “95% effective” actually mean? It is a relative risk number. What are the raw data reported by Polack et al. [1]? In their trial, 21,720 participants received the active vaccine and 21,728 received placebo. Altogether, 162 participants in the placebo group developed COVID-19 illness compared to 8 in the vaccine group; 9 participants in the placebo group developed severe COVID-19 disease compared to 1 in the vaccine group. This is a reduction in COVID-19 illness of 95% (the rate of illness in the vaccine group was 8/162 = 5% of the rate in the placebo group). There were no deaths in either group. This means that there is no evidence that mRNA vaccines reduce the risk of death from COVID-19 illness.
{"title":"mRNA Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are “95% Effective”: What Does That Mean?","authors":"Colin A. Ross","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020344","url":null,"abstract":"J Neurol Neurocrit Care, Volume 3(4): 1–1, 2020 In a recent paper, Polack et al. [1], who are members of the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group, stated that the Pfizer vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is 95% effective. The Clinical Trial Group and their paper are funded by BioNTech and Pfizer. The statement that the mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 manufactured by Pfizer and Modern are 95% effective has been made countless times in the media and by the heads of the CDC and NIAID and other physicians and public health authorities. But what does “95% effective” actually mean? It is a relative risk number. What are the raw data reported by Polack et al. [1]? In their trial, 21,720 participants received the active vaccine and 21,728 received placebo. Altogether, 162 participants in the placebo group developed COVID-19 illness compared to 8 in the vaccine group; 9 participants in the placebo group developed severe COVID-19 disease compared to 1 in the vaccine group. This is a reduction in COVID-19 illness of 95% (the rate of illness in the vaccine group was 8/162 = 5% of the rate in the placebo group). There were no deaths in either group. This means that there is no evidence that mRNA vaccines reduce the risk of death from COVID-19 illness.","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131486663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In a recent opinion piece in JAMA, Saag [1] defined the criteria for evaluating scientific medical evidence, and specifically for evaluating potential interventions for treatment and prevention of coronavirus infections. His comments included the statement that: “First, a single report based on a small, nonrandomized study must be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating, not clinically actionable. Likewise, anecdotal case reports and case series that include several cases likewise must be considered anecdotal and preliminary.” (p. 2162) These criteria are undisputed in medicine. They should be applied to all public health, pharmacological, vaccine and other preventive and treatment interventions for SARS-CoV-2. Saag applied these criteria in evaluating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and concluded that: 1) based on the highest level of evidence, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), hydroxychloroquine is ineffective and should not be used, and 2) enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine was not based on science or data, but instead was due to the politization of the pandemic: “However, the politicization of the treatment was a more important factor in promoting interest in use of this drug. On April 4, the US president, “speaking on gut instinct,” promoted the drug as a potential treatment and authorized the US government to purchase and stockpile 29 million pills of hydroxychloroquine for use by patients with COVID-19. Of note, no health official in the US government endorsed use of hydroxychloroquine owing to the absence of robust data and concern about adverse effects.” (p. 2162).
{"title":"Differences in Evaluation of Hydroxychloroquine and Face Masks for SARS-CoV-2","authors":"C. Ross","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020342","url":null,"abstract":"In a recent opinion piece in JAMA, Saag [1] defined the criteria for evaluating scientific medical evidence, and specifically for evaluating potential interventions for treatment and prevention of coronavirus infections. His comments included the statement that: “First, a single report based on a small, nonrandomized study must be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating, not clinically actionable. Likewise, anecdotal case reports and case series that include several cases likewise must be considered anecdotal and preliminary.” (p. 2162) These criteria are undisputed in medicine. They should be applied to all public health, pharmacological, vaccine and other preventive and treatment interventions for SARS-CoV-2. Saag applied these criteria in evaluating the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 and concluded that: 1) based on the highest level of evidence, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), hydroxychloroquine is ineffective and should not be used, and 2) enthusiasm for hydroxychloroquine was not based on science or data, but instead was due to the politization of the pandemic: “However, the politicization of the treatment was a more important factor in promoting interest in use of this drug. On April 4, the US president, “speaking on gut instinct,” promoted the drug as a potential treatment and authorized the US government to purchase and stockpile 29 million pills of hydroxychloroquine for use by patients with COVID-19. Of note, no health official in the US government endorsed use of hydroxychloroquine owing to the absence of robust data and concern about adverse effects.” (p. 2162).","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126919408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
B. Nordström, Ann-Charlotte Kassberg, S. W. Axelsson
negative psychosocial effects because of the body being unreliable and the patient’s self-identity, role and social relations may also be negatively affected [14,15]. A person with stroke may have an altered life instead of going back to life as it was before the stroke. The altered life may have an impact on the person’s capacity to learn and adapt to a change in the environment [16]. Overall, a person-centred rehabilitation needs to include biopsychosocial and spiritual aspects, preferences, experience’s and the right to make decisions about one´s treatment [17,18]. It is about respecting, differences and deviation and having an inclusive attitude to the ways people view their own embodiment [19]. Living in a sparsely populated area, includes specific challenges such as long distances to receive rehabilitation. These conditions place high demands on the person, family members and their social network. Rehabilitation at home enables adaptation of the environment and provides opportunities for the patient to practice skills that are important for them. There are no studies regarding stroke patient’s own perspective, of undergoing home-based rehabilitation in sparsely populated areas from true person-centred perspective [20]. Such knowledge may support health care providers to develop individual interventions at home and support transition from rehabilitation units to the home in this specific area. Abstract Aim : The aim was to illuminate the situation of patients with stroke in sparsely populated areas and their experience of person-centred rehabilitation at home. Methods : Fourteen persons with stroke who had received Early Supported Discharge home- rehabilitation following stroke were interviewed. The data were analyzed with a qualitative content analysis method. Results: The analysis resulted in one overall theme: Living a life with a new version of me 2.0, built up from three categories: A new strengthen sense of self, Being at home creates trust and self-management and Environmental factors essential for rehabilitation at home . Conclusion: The results exposed that early home rehabilitation in sparsely populated area following stroke influences the person’s possibilities to return to the life they lived before. Living a life with the new version of me 2.0 includes conditions related to prerequisites of own empowerment and the importance of both relativities and professionals.
{"title":"Stroke Survivors’ Experiences of Early Person- Centered Rehabilitation at Home – Living in Sparsely Populated Areas","authors":"B. Nordström, Ann-Charlotte Kassberg, S. W. Axelsson","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020331","url":null,"abstract":"negative psychosocial effects because of the body being unreliable and the patient’s self-identity, role and social relations may also be negatively affected [14,15]. A person with stroke may have an altered life instead of going back to life as it was before the stroke. The altered life may have an impact on the person’s capacity to learn and adapt to a change in the environment [16]. Overall, a person-centred rehabilitation needs to include biopsychosocial and spiritual aspects, preferences, experience’s and the right to make decisions about one´s treatment [17,18]. It is about respecting, differences and deviation and having an inclusive attitude to the ways people view their own embodiment [19]. Living in a sparsely populated area, includes specific challenges such as long distances to receive rehabilitation. These conditions place high demands on the person, family members and their social network. Rehabilitation at home enables adaptation of the environment and provides opportunities for the patient to practice skills that are important for them. There are no studies regarding stroke patient’s own perspective, of undergoing home-based rehabilitation in sparsely populated areas from true person-centred perspective [20]. Such knowledge may support health care providers to develop individual interventions at home and support transition from rehabilitation units to the home in this specific area. Abstract Aim : The aim was to illuminate the situation of patients with stroke in sparsely populated areas and their experience of person-centred rehabilitation at home. Methods : Fourteen persons with stroke who had received Early Supported Discharge home- rehabilitation following stroke were interviewed. The data were analyzed with a qualitative content analysis method. Results: The analysis resulted in one overall theme: Living a life with a new version of me 2.0, built up from three categories: A new strengthen sense of self, Being at home creates trust and self-management and Environmental factors essential for rehabilitation at home . Conclusion: The results exposed that early home rehabilitation in sparsely populated area following stroke influences the person’s possibilities to return to the life they lived before. Living a life with the new version of me 2.0 includes conditions related to prerequisites of own empowerment and the importance of both relativities and professionals.","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"121 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131551172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J Neurol Neurocrit Care, Volume 3(2): 1–3, 2020 The evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that surgical facemasks and cloth facemasks are ineffective for preventing transmission of respiratory viruses in public is conclusive [1-8]. In all the meta-analyses of all the existing RCTs [4-7], not a single trial was found in which facemasks provided any protection against virus transmission in public [1,2]. Consistent with the findings of all RCTs comparing transmission rates in public with and without facemasks, Leung et al. compared the rates of detection of three types of viruses in exhalations by infected individuals with and without facemasks: they concluded that, with facemasks, there was: “no significant reduction in detection of influenza virus in aerosols;” “For rhinovirus there were no significant differences between detection of virus with or without facemasks, both in respiratory droplets and in aerosols;” and, for coronavirus there was “no significant reduction in detection in aerosols [3].” They did observe a reduction in detection of viruses in respiratory droplets for influenza virus and coronavirus. There is no doubt that facemasks can reduce the transmission of droplets, but droplets are not the concern for transmission of viruses in public. Significant numbers of droplets are not exhaled by asymptomatic carriers because they are not coughing or sneezing in public. Symptomatic carriers who are coughing and sneezing should be quarantined. The rationale for both recommended and mandated facemasks in public is to reduce transmission by asymptomatic carriers. Since all the RCTs in the literature show no reduction in transmission of viruses in public due to facemasks, one wonders why the CDC, NIH and virtually all medical authorities are stating that there is conclusive scientific evidence that facemasks reduce viral transmission in public.
{"title":"How Misinformation that Facemasks are Effective for Reducing COVID-19 is Transmitted","authors":"C. Ross","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020323","url":null,"abstract":"J Neurol Neurocrit Care, Volume 3(2): 1–3, 2020 The evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that surgical facemasks and cloth facemasks are ineffective for preventing transmission of respiratory viruses in public is conclusive [1-8]. In all the meta-analyses of all the existing RCTs [4-7], not a single trial was found in which facemasks provided any protection against virus transmission in public [1,2]. Consistent with the findings of all RCTs comparing transmission rates in public with and without facemasks, Leung et al. compared the rates of detection of three types of viruses in exhalations by infected individuals with and without facemasks: they concluded that, with facemasks, there was: “no significant reduction in detection of influenza virus in aerosols;” “For rhinovirus there were no significant differences between detection of virus with or without facemasks, both in respiratory droplets and in aerosols;” and, for coronavirus there was “no significant reduction in detection in aerosols [3].” They did observe a reduction in detection of viruses in respiratory droplets for influenza virus and coronavirus. There is no doubt that facemasks can reduce the transmission of droplets, but droplets are not the concern for transmission of viruses in public. Significant numbers of droplets are not exhaled by asymptomatic carriers because they are not coughing or sneezing in public. Symptomatic carriers who are coughing and sneezing should be quarantined. The rationale for both recommended and mandated facemasks in public is to reduce transmission by asymptomatic carriers. Since all the RCTs in the literature show no reduction in transmission of viruses in public due to facemasks, one wonders why the CDC, NIH and virtually all medical authorities are stating that there is conclusive scientific evidence that facemasks reduce viral transmission in public.","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134027948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jeffrey Swarz, S. Daily, E. Niemi, Samuel G. Hilbert, H. Ibrahim, Daniela Rauch, J. Gaitanis
Estimates suggest children currently account for 1%-5% of diagnosed COVID-19 cases [1,2]. Available literature focusing on children is limited in comparison to adults but suggests the clinical spectrum of illness in the pediatric population associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is distinct from and broader than that in the adults. The most frequently reported symptoms in adults with COVID-19 include fever, dry cough, fatigue, and in severe cases dyspnea is common [3]. Children, when symptomatic, also present with fever and cough, but a significant proportion present with atypical symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhea [4,5]. A large proportion of COVID-19 positive children are asymptomatic or have mild cases of disease [6,7]. This difference in presentation and severity may lead to underdiagnosis in children facilitating spread of the disease [8]. This report documents the first reported case of a COVID-19 positive child presenting with focal status epilepticus.
{"title":"COVID-19 Infection Presenting as Acute Onset Focal Status Epilepticus in a Nine Year Old Boy","authors":"Jeffrey Swarz, S. Daily, E. Niemi, Samuel G. Hilbert, H. Ibrahim, Daniela Rauch, J. Gaitanis","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020322","url":null,"abstract":"Estimates suggest children currently account for 1%-5% of diagnosed COVID-19 cases [1,2]. Available literature focusing on children is limited in comparison to adults but suggests the clinical spectrum of illness in the pediatric population associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is distinct from and broader than that in the adults. The most frequently reported symptoms in adults with COVID-19 include fever, dry cough, fatigue, and in severe cases dyspnea is common [3]. Children, when symptomatic, also present with fever and cough, but a significant proportion present with atypical symptoms such as vomiting and diarrhea [4,5]. A large proportion of COVID-19 positive children are asymptomatic or have mild cases of disease [6,7]. This difference in presentation and severity may lead to underdiagnosis in children facilitating spread of the disease [8]. This report documents the first reported case of a COVID-19 positive child presenting with focal status epilepticus.","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133465966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Facemasks are Not Effective for Preventing Transmission of the Coronavirus","authors":"","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020321","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125845867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Thoughts on COVID-19","authors":"","doi":"10.31038/jnnc.2020313","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31038/jnnc.2020313","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":237353,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology and Neurocritical Care","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133714535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：