Cognitive domains affected post-COVID-19; a systematic review and meta-analysis

\ua9 2024 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.Background and purpose: This review aims to characterize the pattern of post-COVID-19 cognitive impairment, allowing better prediction of impact on daily function to inform clinical management and rehabilitation. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of neurocognitive sequelae following COVID-19 was conducted, following PRISMA-S guidelines. Studies were included if they reported domain-specific cognitive assessment in patients with COVID-19 at >4 weeks post-infection. Studies were deemed high-quality if they had >40 participants, utilized healthy controls, had low attrition rates and mitigated for confounders. Results: Five of the seven primary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) cognitive domains were assessed by enough high-quality studies to facilitate meta-analysis. Medium effect sizes indicating impairment in patients post-COVID-19 versus controls were seen across executive function (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.45), learning and memory (SMD −0.55), complex attention (SMD −0.54) and language (SMD −0.54), with perceptual motor function appearing to be impacted to a greater degree (SMD −0.70). A narrative synthesis of the 56 low-quality studies also suggested no obvious pattern of impairment. Conclusions: This review found moderate impairments across multiple domains of cognition in patients post-COVID-19, with no specific pattern. The reported literature was significantly heterogeneous, with a wide variety of cognitive tasks, small sample sizes and disparate initial disease severities limiting interpretability. The finding of consistent impairment across a range of cognitive tasks suggests broad, as opposed to domain-specific, brain dysfunction. Future studies should utilize a harmonized test battery to facilitate inter-study comparisons, whilst also accounting for the interactions between COVID-19, neurological sequelae and mental health, the interplay between which might explain cognitive impairment

Inter-rater reliability of categorical versus continuous scoring of fish vitality: does it affect the utility of the reflex action mortality predictor (RAMP) approach?

Scoring reflex responsiveness and injury of aquatic organisms has gained popularity as predictors of discard survival. Given this method relies upon the individual interpretation of scoring criteria, an evaluation of its robustness is done here to test whether protocol-instructed, multiple raters with diverse backgrounds (research scientist, technician, and student) are able to produce similar or the same reflex and injury score for one of the same flatfish (European plaice, Pleuronectes platessa) after experiencing commercial fishing stressors. Inter-rater reliability for three raters was assessed by using a 3-point categorical scale (‘absent’, ‘weak’, ‘strong’) and a tagged visual analogue continuous scale (tVAS, a 10 cm bar split in three labelled sections: 0 for ‘absent’, ‘weak’, ‘moderate’, and ‘strong’) for six reflex responses, and a 4-point scale for four injury types. Plaice (n = 304) were sampled from 17 research beam-trawl deployments during four trips. Fleiss kappa (categorical scores) and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC, continuous scores) indicated variable inter-rater agreement by reflex type (ranging between 0.55 and 0.88, and 67% and 91% for Fleiss kappa and ICC, respectively), with least agreement among raters on extent of injury (Fleiss kappa between 0.08 and 0.27). Despite differences among raters, which did not significantly influence the relationship between impairment and predicted survival, combining categorical reflex and injury scores always produced a close relationship of such vitality indices and observed delayed mortality. The use of the continuous scale did not improve fit of these models compared with using the reflex impairment index based on categorical scores. Given these findings, we recommend using a 3-point categorical over a continuous scale. We also determined that training rather than experience of raters minimised inter-rater differences. Our results suggest that cost-efficient reflex impairment and injury scoring may be considered a robust technique to evaluate lethal stress and damage of this flatfish species on-board commercial beam-trawl vessels

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Evidence synthesis to inform model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations of diagnostic tests: a methodological systematic review of health technology assessments

Background: Evaluations of diagnostic tests are challenging because of the indirect nature of their impact on patient outcomes. Model-based health economic evaluations of tests allow different types of evidence from various sources to be incorporated and enable cost-effectiveness estimates to be made beyond the duration of available study data. To parameterize a health-economic model fully, all the ways a test impacts on patient health must be quantified, including but not limited to diagnostic test accuracy. Methods: We assessed all UK NIHR HTA reports published May 2009-July 2015. Reports were included if they evaluated a diagnostic test, included a model-based health economic evaluation and included a systematic review and meta-analysis of test accuracy. From each eligible report we extracted information on the following topics: 1) what evidence aside from test accuracy was searched for and synthesised, 2) which methods were used to synthesise test accuracy evidence and how did the results inform the economic model, 3) how/whether threshold effects were explored, 4) how the potential dependency between multiple tests in a pathway was accounted for, and 5) for evaluations of tests targeted at the primary care setting, how evidence from differing healthcare settings was incorporated. Results: The bivariate or HSROC model was implemented in 20/22 reports that met all inclusion criteria. Test accuracy data for health economic modelling was obtained from meta-analyses completely in four reports, partially in fourteen reports and not at all in four reports. Only 2/7 reports that used a quantitative test gave clear threshold recommendations. All 22 reports explored the effect of uncertainty in accuracy parameters but most of those that used multiple tests did not allow for dependence between test results. 7/22 tests were potentially suitable for primary care but the majority found limited evidence on test accuracy in primary care settings. Conclusions: The uptake of appropriate meta-analysis methods for synthesising evidence on diagnostic test accuracy in UK NIHR HTAs has improved in recent years. Future research should focus on other evidence requirements for cost-effectiveness assessment, threshold effects for quantitative tests and the impact of multiple diagnostic tests

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.]

Tetrapterys styloptera

Angiosperm

C-reactive protein and neutrophil count laboratory test requests from primary care: what is the demand and would substitution by point of care technology be viable?

Aims: C-reactive protein (CRP) and neutrophil count (NC) are important diagnostic indicators of inflammation. Point-of-care (POC) technologies for these markers are available but rarely used in community settings in the UK. To inform the potential for POC tests, it is necessary to understand the demand for testing. We aimed to describe the frequency of CRP and NC test requests from primary care to central laboratory services, describe variability between practices and assess the relationship between the tests.Methods: We described the number of patients with either or both laboratory tests, and the volume of testing per individual and per practice, in a retrospective cohort of all adults in general practices in Oxfordshire, 2014–2016.Results: 372 017 CRP and 776 581 NC tests in 160 883 and 275 093 patients, respectively, were requested from 69 practices. CRP was tested mainly in combination with NC, while the latter was more often tested alone. The median (IQR) of CRP and NC tests/person tested was 1 (1–2) and 2 (1–3), respectively. The median (IQR) tests/ practice/week was 36 (22–52) and 72 (50–108), and per 1000 persons registered/practice/week was 4 (3–5) and 8 (7–9), respectively. The median (IQR) CRP and NC concentrations were 2.7 (0.9–7.9)mg/dL and 4.1 (3.1–5.5)×109/L, respectively.Conclusions: The high demand for CRP and NC testing in the community, and the range of results falling within the reportable range for current POC technologies highlight the opportunity for laboratory testing to be supplemented by POC testing in general practice.</br

Effect of point of care blood testing on physical health check completion in mental health services: mixed-methods evaluation

Background: Physical health outcomes in severe mental illness are worse than in the general population. Routine physical health check completion in this cohort is poor. Aims: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the impact of ‘Point of Care’ (POC) blood testing on physical health check completion in two Community Mental Health Teams. Methods: In a prospective cohort design, we equipped an Early Intervention Service (EIS) and a Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) with a POC device for six months. We compared rates of blood test and full physical health check completion in the intervention teams to a matched EIS and CMHT, historically and during the intervention. We explored attitudes to POC tests using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians experiencing POC-augmented care. Results: Whilst the CMHT did not utilise POC and saw no change in outcomes, direct comparison of testing rates in the intervention period showed the EIS had increased physical health check completion (RR=5.18 [CI=2.54 to 12.44] p Conclusions: POC was beneficial and acceptable to patients, and may increase physical health check uptake. Further research, accounting for clinician barriers is needed to evaluate POC-augmented care’s clinical and cost effectiveness.</p