scholarly journals Frequency of neurological manifestations in COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 350 studies

Author(s):  
Shubham Misra ◽  
Kavitha Kolappa ◽  
Manya Prasad ◽  
Divya Radhakrishnan ◽  
Kiran T Thakur ◽  
...  

SummaryObjectiveTo summarize the frequency of neurological manifestations reported in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysisEligibility criteriaStudies enrolling consecutive COVID-19 patients (probable or confirmed) presenting with neurological manifestations.Data sourcesPubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, clinicaltrials.gov and EMBASE from 31st December 2019 to 15th December 2020.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts retrieved by literature search. Risk of bias was examined using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for neurological manifestations. Odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI were calculated to determine the association of neurological manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed using I-square, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2.ResultsOf 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,634 COVID-19 patients, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurological manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurological symptoms included: fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%) and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurological diagnosis (pooled prevalence-2%). In COVID-19 patients aged >60, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34% and the presence of any neurological manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.11 to 2.91).ConclusionsUp to one-third of COVID-19 patients analysed in this review experienced at least one neurological manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those over 60, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurological manifestations in this group was associated with near doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted keeping in view the limitations of observational studies and associated bias.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020181867.What is already known on this topicThe frequency of neurological manifestations including fatigue, myalgia, taste and smell impairments, headache and dizziness in COVID-19 patients has been reported in a few systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, considerable heterogeneity has been observed in terms of methodological quality of the studies, severity of the disease, mean age and hospitalization status of the patients. The evidence regarding the frequency of neurological diagnoses including stroke, encephalitis, Guillain Barré syndrome (GBS) is also limited to case reports and case series and no data exists thus far on the pooled prevalence estimates for neurological diagnoses in COVID-19 patients.What this study addsTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest systematic review and meta-analysis to date (including 350 studies with data on 145,634 cases) summarizing the evidence on the frequency of the full spectrum of neurological manifestations in COVID-19 patients in the overall, young and elderly populations. For the first time, our review reports the pooled prevalence of stroke in COVID-19 patients. Risk of bias, old age and disease severity were potential determinants of the frequency and nature of neurological manifestations as well as its association with mortality. Our review also highlights the need to develop reporting standards for studies describing the frequency of clinical features. Moreover, we note that this will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis on this subject to include studies reported in all languages.

Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012930
Author(s):  
Shubham Misra ◽  
Kavitha Kolappa ◽  
Manya Prasad ◽  
Divya Radhakrishnan ◽  
Kiran T Thakur ◽  
...  

Background and Objectives:One year since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to summarize the frequency of neurological manifestations reported in COVID-19 patients and investigate the association of these manifestations with disease severity and mortality.Methods:We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library, clinicaltrials.gov and EMBASE from 31st December 2019 to 15th December 2020 for studies enrolling consecutive COVID-19 patients presenting with neurological manifestations. Risk of bias was examined using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, and pooled prevalence and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for neurological manifestations. Odds ratio (OR) and 95%CI were calculated to determine the association of neurological manifestations with disease severity and mortality. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed using I-square, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses. Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.6.2.Results:Of 2,455 citations, 350 studies were included in this review, providing data on 145,721 COVID-19 patients, 89% of whom were hospitalized. Forty-one neurological manifestations (24 symptoms and 17 diagnoses) were identified. Pooled prevalence of the most common neurological symptoms included: fatigue (32%), myalgia (20%), taste impairment (21%), smell impairment (19%) and headache (13%). A low risk of bias was observed in 85% of studies; studies with higher risk of bias yielded higher prevalence estimates. Stroke was the most common neurological diagnosis (pooled prevalence- 2%). In COVID-19 patients aged ≥60, the pooled prevalence of acute confusion/delirium was 34% and the presence of any neurological manifestations in this age group was associated with mortality (OR 1.80; 95%CI 1.11 to 2.91).Discussion:Up to one-third of COVID-19 patients analysed in this review experienced at least one neurological manifestation. One in 50 patients experienced stroke. In those over 60, more than one-third had acute confusion/delirium; the presence of neurological manifestations in this group was associated with near doubling of mortality. Results must be interpreted keeping in view the limitations of observational studies and associated bias.


2021 ◽  
pp. rapm-2020-101960
Author(s):  
Christine Hunt ◽  
Rajat Moman ◽  
Ashley Peterson ◽  
Rachel Wilson ◽  
Stephen Covington ◽  
...  

BackgroundThe reported prevalence of chronic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) varies widely due, in part, to differences in the taxonomy of chronic pain. A widely used classification system is available to describe subcategories of chronic pain in SCI, but the prevalence of chronic pain in SCI based on this system is unknown.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification system.Evidence reviewA comprehensive search of databases from January 1980 to August 2019 was conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified tool developed for uncontrolled studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty in prevalence estimates.FindingsA total of 1305 records were screened, and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain was 68% (95% CI 63% to 73%). The pooled prevalence of neuropathic pain in 13 studies was 58% (95% CI 49% to 68%); the pooled prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in 11 studies was 56% (95% CI 41% to 70%); the pooled prevalence of visceral pain in 8 studies was 20% (95% CI 11% to 29%) and the pooled prevalence of nociceptive pain in 2 studies was 45% (95% CI 13% to 78%). Meta-regression of risk of bias (p=0.20), traumatic versus non-traumatic etiology of injury (p=0.59), and studies where pain was a primary outcome (p=0.32) demonstrated that these factors were not significant moderators of heterogeneity. Certainty in prevalence estimates was judged to be low due to unexplained heterogeneity.ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis extends the findings of previous studies by reporting the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the ISCIP classification system, thereby reducing clinical heterogeneity in the reporting of pain prevalence related to SCI.


2020 ◽  
pp. flgastro-2020-101529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony K Akobeng ◽  
Ciaran Grafton-Clarke ◽  
Ibtihal Abdelgadir ◽  
Erica Twum-Barimah ◽  
Morris Gordon

ObjectivesTo summarise the published evidence on the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children and to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO’s database of publications on novel coronavirus. We included English language studies that had described original demographic and clinical characteristics of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and reported on the presence or absence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was expressed as proportion and 95% CI.ResultsThe search identified 269 citations. Thirteen studies (nine case series and four case reports) comprising data for 284 patients were included. Overall, we rated four studies as having a low risk of bias, eight studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of nine studies, comprising 280 patients, the pooled prevalence of all gastrointestinal symptoms was 22.8% (95% CI 13.1% to 35.2%; I2=54%). Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported gastrointestinal symptom followed by vomiting and abdominal pain.ConclusionsNearly a quarter of children with COVID-19 have gastrointestinal symptoms. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the gastrointestinal manifestation of COVID-19.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020177569.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (14) ◽  
pp. 1428-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha B Ross ◽  
Katherine Jones ◽  
Bianca Blanch ◽  
Rajesh Puranik ◽  
Kevin McGeechan ◽  
...  

Abstract Aims To assess the reported prevalence of left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) in different adult cohorts, taking in to consideration the role of diagnostic criteria and imaging modalities used. Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting LVNC prevalence in adults. Studies were sourced from Pre-Medline, Medline, and Embase and assessed for eligibility according to inclusion criteria. Eligible studies provided a prevalence of LVNC in adult populations (≥12 years). Studies were assessed, and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Fifty-nine eligible studies documenting LVNC in 67 unique cohorts were included. The majority of studies were assessed as moderate or high risk of bias. The pooled prevalence estimates for LVNC were consistently higher amongst cohorts diagnosed on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging (14.79%, n = 26; I2 = 99.45%) compared with echocardiogram (1.28%, n = 36; I2 = 98.17%). This finding was unchanged when analysis was restricted to studies at low or moderate risk of bias. The prevalence of LVNC varied between disease and population representative cohorts. Athletic cohorts demonstrated high pooled prevalence estimates on echocardiogram (3.16%, n = 5; I2 = 97.37%) and CMR imaging (27.29%, n = 2). Conclusion Left ventricular non-compaction in adult populations is a poorly defined entity which likely encompasses both physiological adaptation and pathological disease. There is a higher prevalence with the introduction of newer imaging technologies, specifically CMR imaging, which identify LVNC changes more readily. The clinical significance of these findings remains unclear; however, there is significant potential for overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and unnecessary follow-up.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 401-401
Author(s):  
Yue-Heng Yin ◽  
Liu Yat Justina

Abstract Obesity has been shown to intensify the decline of physical function and lead to frailty. Nutrition is an important method in managing obesity and frailty, while seldom reviews have ever explored the effects of nutritional education interventions. We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42019142403) to explore the effectiveness of nutritional education interventions in managing body composition and physio-psychosocial parameters related to frailty. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were searched in CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus from 2001 to 2019. Hand search for the reference lists of included papers was conducted as well. We assessed the quality of included studies by Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses and narrative synthesis were used to analyse the data. Two studies with low risk of bias were screened from 180 articles, which involved 177 older people with an average age of 69.69±4.08 years old. The results showed that nutritional education was significantly effective in reducing body weight and fat mass than exercises, and it was beneficial to enhancing physical function and psychosocial well-being. But the effects of nutritional education in increasing muscle strength were not better than exercises. The combined effects of nutritional education and exercises were superior than either exercises or nutritional education interventions solely in preventing the loss of lean mass and bone marrow density, and in improving physical function. Due to limited numbers of relevant studies, the strong evidence of effectiveness of nutritional education interventions on reversing frailty is still lacking.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e042350
Author(s):  
Maximilian Sohn ◽  
Ayman Agha ◽  
Igors Iesalnieks ◽  
Anna Tiefes ◽  
Alfred Hochrein ◽  
...  

IntroductionAcute diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon is increasingly treated by a non-operative approach. The need for colectomy after recovery from a flare of acute diverticulitis of the left colon, complicated diverticular abscess is still controversial. The primary aim of this study is to assess the risk of interval emergency surgery by systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE will be screened for the predefined searching term: (Diverticulitis OR Diverticulum) AND (Abscess OR pelvic abscess OR pericolic abscess OR intraabdominal abscess) AND (surgery OR operation OR sigmoidectomy OR drainage OR percutaneous drainage OR conservative therapy OR watchful waiting). All studies published in an English or German-speaking peer-reviewed journal will be suitable for this analysis. Case reports, case series of less than five patients, studies without follow-up information, systematic and non-systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded. Primary endpoint is the rate of interval emergency surgery. Using the Review Manager Software (Review Manager/RevMan, V.5.3, Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012) meta-analysis will be pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess methodological quality of non-randomised studies. Risk of bias in randomised studies will be assessed using the Cochrane developed RoB 2-tool.Ethics and disseminationAs no new data are being collected, ethical approval is exempt for this study. This systematic review is to provide a new insight on the need for surgical treatment after a first attack of acute diverticulitis, complicated by intra-abdominal or pelvic abscesses. The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164813.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.


Author(s):  
Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽  
María Fernández-González ◽  
Paula Postigo-Martin ◽  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽  
...  

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2984
Author(s):  
Stepan M. Esagian ◽  
Christos D. Kakos ◽  
Emmanouil Giorgakis ◽  
Lyle Burdine ◽  
J. Camilo Barreto ◽  
...  

The role of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing hepatectomy is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Random-effects meta-analysis was carried out to compare the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with resectable HCC undergoing hepatectomy followed by adjuvant TACE vs. hepatectomy alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore the effect of hepatitis B viral status, microvascular invasion, type of resection (anatomic vs. parenchymal-sparing), and tumor size on the outcomes. Ten eligible RCTs, reporting on 1216 patients in total, were identified. The combination of hepatectomy and adjuvant TACE was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and RFS (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.88; p < 0.001) compared to hepatectomy alone. There were significant concerns regarding the risk of bias in most of the included studies. Overall, adjuvant TACE may be associated with an oncologic benefit in select HCC patients. However, the applicability of these findings may be limited to Eastern Asian populations, due to the geographically restricted sample. High-quality multinational RCTs, as well as predictive tools to optimize patient selection, are necessary before adjuvant TACE can be routinely implemented into standard practice. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021245758.


2021 ◽  
pp. 109980042110154
Author(s):  
Seong-Hi Park ◽  
Chul-Gyu Kim

Background: A systematic review was performed to identify the types of physical activities effective as interventions in preventing metabolic syndrome in middle-aged women. Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) served as the data sources. Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2 was applied to assess the risk of bias of the randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses were performed on selected studies using Review Manager 5.3. Thirty-one trials enrolling 2,202 participants were included. Results: Compared to controls, the effects of physical activity were indicated by pooled mean differences, which were −0.57 kg for body weight, −0.43 kg/m2 for body mass index, −1.63 cm for waist circumference, −4.89 mmHg for systolic blood pressure (BP), and −2.71 mmHg for diastolic BP. The effects were greater on the measurements of waist circumference and BP than on body weight and BMI. The types of physical activities were further analyzed according to sub-groups. Only aerobic exercise did not affect body weight and resistance exercise did not significantly change any results. Contrarily, combined exercises significantly reduced measurements of waist circumference and BP. Conclusion: This review can provide valuable information for research and implementation of measures to prevent metabolic syndrome in middle-aged women.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document