-
Scientific Reports Jun 2022The objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses is to estimate the prevalence of long-COVID in children and adolescents and to present the full spectrum of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses is to estimate the prevalence of long-COVID in children and adolescents and to present the full spectrum of symptoms present after acute COVID-19. We have used PubMed and Embase to identify observational studies published before February 10th, 2022 that included a minimum of 30 patients with ages ranging from 0 to 18 years that met the National Institute for Healthcare Excellence (NICE) definition of long-COVID, which consists of both ongoing (4 to 12 weeks) and post-COVID-19 (≥ 12 weeks) symptoms. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I statistics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewers and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed (registration PROSPERO CRD42021275408). The literature search yielded 8373 publications, of which 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 80,071 children and adolescents were included. The prevalence of long-COVID was 25.24%, and the most prevalent clinical manifestations were mood symptoms (16.50%), fatigue (9.66%), and sleep disorders (8.42%). Children infected by SARS-CoV-2 had a higher risk of persistent dyspnea, anosmia/ageusia, and/or fever compared to controls. Limitations of the studies analyzed include lack of standardized definitions, recall, selection, misclassification, nonresponse and/or loss of follow-up, and a high level of heterogeneity.
Topics: Adolescent; Ageusia; COVID-19; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 35739136
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-13495-5 -
Journal of Medical Virology Jan 2022There is an established literature on the symptoms and complications of COVID-19 but the after-effects of COVID-19 are not well understood with few studies reporting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is an established literature on the symptoms and complications of COVID-19 but the after-effects of COVID-19 are not well understood with few studies reporting persistent symptoms and quality of life. We aim to evaluate the pooled prevalence of poor quality of life in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) and conducted meta-regression to evaluate the effects of persistent symptoms and intensive care unit (ICU) admission on the poor quality of life. We extracted data from observational studies describing persistent symptoms and quality of life in post-COVID-19 patients from March 10, 2020, to March 10, 2021, following PRISMA guidelines with a consensus of two independent reviewers. We calculated the pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) and created forest plots using random-effects models. A total of 12 studies with 4828 PCS patients were included. We found that amongst PCS patients, the pooled prevalence of poor quality of life (EQ-VAS) was (59%; 95% CI: 42%-75%). Based on individual factors in the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, the prevalence of mobility was (36, 10-67), personal care (8, 1-21), usual quality (28, 2-65), pain/discomfort (42, 28-55), and anxiety/depression (38, 19-58). The prevalence of persistent symptoms was fatigue (64, 54-73), dyspnea (39.5, 20-60), anosmia (20, 15-24), arthralgia (24.3, 14-36), headache (21, 3-47), sleep disturbances (47, 7-89), and mental health (14.5, 4-29). Meta-regression analysis showed the poor quality of life was significantly higher among post-COVID-19 patients with ICU admission (p = 0.004) and fatigue (p = 0.0015). Our study concludes that PCS is associated with poor quality of life, persistent symptoms including fatigue, dyspnea, anosmia, sleep disturbances, and worse mental health. This suggests that we need more research on PCS patients to understand the risk factors causing it and eventually leading to poor quality of life.
Topics: Adult; Age Factors; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Male; Middle Aged; Quality of Life; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
PubMed: 34463956
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27309 -
Neuropsychology Review Mar 2024Olfactory training (OT), or smell training,consists of repeated exposure to odorants over time with the intended neuroplastic effect of improving or remediating... (Review)
Review
Olfactory training (OT), or smell training,consists of repeated exposure to odorants over time with the intended neuroplastic effect of improving or remediating olfactory functioning. Declines in olfaction parallel declines in cognition in various pathological conditions and aging. Research suggests a dynamic neural connection exists between olfaction and cognition. Thus, if OT can improve olfaction, could OT also improve cognition and support brain function? To answer this question, we conducted a systematic review of the literature to determine whether there is evidence that OT translates to improved cognition or altered brain morphology and connectivity that supports cognition. Across three databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, & Embase), 18 articles were identified in this systematic review. Overall, the reviewed studies provided emerging evidence that OT is associated with improved global cognition, and in particular, verbal fluency and verbal learning/memory. OT is also associated with increases in the volume/size of olfactory-related brain regions, including the olfactory bulb and hippocampus, and altered functional connectivity. Interestingly, these positive effects were not limited to patients with smell loss (i.e., hyposmia & anosmia) but normosmic (i.e., normal ability to smell) participants benefitted as well. Implications for practice and research are provided.
Topics: Humans; Brain; Cognition; Olfaction Disorders; Olfactory Training; Smell
PubMed: 36725781
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09573-0 -
American Journal of Epidemiology Jan 2021Health-care workers (HCWs) are at the frontline of response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), being at a higher risk of acquiring the disease and, subsequently,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Health-care workers (HCWs) are at the frontline of response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), being at a higher risk of acquiring the disease and, subsequently, exposing patients and others. Searches of 8 bibliographic databases were performed to systematically review the evidence on the prevalence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among HCWs. A total of 97 studies (all published in 2020) met the inclusion criteria. The estimated prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from HCWs' samples, using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and the presence of antibodies, was 11% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7, 15) and 7% (95% CI: 4, 11), respectively. The most frequently affected personnel were nurses (48%, 95% CI: 41, 56), whereas most of the COVID-19-positive medical personnel were working in hospital nonemergency wards during screening (43%, 95% CI: 28, 59). Anosmia, fever, and myalgia were the only symptoms associated with HCW SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Among HCWs positive for COVID-19 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, 40% (95% CI: 17, 65) were asymptomatic at time of diagnosis. Finally, severe clinical complications developed in 5% (95% CI: 3, 8) of the COVID-19-positive HCWs, and 0.5% (95% CI: 0.02, 1.3) died. Health-care workers suffer a significant burden from COVID-19, with those working in hospital nonemergency wards and nurses being the most commonly infected personnel.
Topics: COVID-19; Global Health; Health Personnel; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 32870978
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwaa191 -
Allergy & Rhinology (Providence, R.I.) 2021Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anosmia and hyposmia have many etiologies, including trauma, chronic sinusitis, neoplasms, and respiratory viral infections such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to systematically review the literature on the diagnostic evaluation of anosmia/hyposmia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating diagnostic modalities for anosmia, written in the English language, used original data, and had two or more patients.
RESULTS
A total of 2065 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 226 abstracts were examined, yielding 27 full-text articles meeting inclusion criteria (Level of evidence ranging from 1 to 4; most level 2). The studies included a total of 13,577 patients. The most utilized diagnostic tools were orthonasal smell tests (such as the Sniffin' Sticks and the UPSIT, along with validated abridged smell tests). Though various imaging modalities (including MRI and CT) were frequently mentioned in the workup of olfactory dysfunction, routine imaging was not used to primarily diagnose smell loss.
CONCLUSION
The literature includes several studies on validity and reliability for various smell tests in diagnosing anosmia. Along with a thorough history and physical, validated orthonasal smell tests should be part of the workup of the patient with suspected olfactory dysfunction. The most widely studied modality was MRI, but criteria for the timing and sequence of imaging modalities was heterogenous.
PubMed: 34285823
DOI: 10.1177/21526567211026568 -
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery May 2017The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the treatment of nasal bone fractures. The search terms ("nasal bone fracture" AND complication) and ("nasal... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the treatment of nasal bone fractures. The search terms ("nasal bone fracture" AND complication) and ("nasal bone fracture" AND [anosmia OR olfaction OR olfactory nerve OR smell]) and (anosmia AND ["nasal preparation" OR "nasal antiseptics"]) were used to search PubMed and SCOPUS. Of the 500 titles, 40 full papers were reviewed. One paper was excluded, and 3 mined papers were added. Ultimately, 12 papers were analyzed. The overall deformity rate was 10.4% ± 4.8%. No significant differences were found between patients who underwent closed reduction (14.7% ± 7.3%) and those who underwent open reduction (9.4% ± 4.4%), between those who underwent local anesthesia (5.8% ± 4.5%), and those who underwent general anesthesia (8.8% ± 3.8%), or between those who received timely treatment (5.7%) and those whose treatment was delayed (9.0%). Septal deviation occurred in 10.0% of patients as a sequela of nasal bone fracture. The nasal obstruction rate was 10.5% ± 5.3%. Fewer patients of nasal obstruction occurred in the open reduction patients (6.9% ± 4.4%) than in the closed reduction patients (15.2%). One patient of epiphora and 1 patient of diplopia were reportedAmong the 77 patients with nasal bone fractures, 29 (37.7% ± 11.3%) complained of olfactory disturbances. No significant associations were found between the type of fracture and the presence of olfactory disturbances. It is recommended for providers to explain to patients that approximately one-tenth of nasal bone fractures exhibit deformity, septal deviation, or nasal obstruction after surgery. Surgeons should take considerable care to avoid the olfactory mucosa during reduction surgery.
Topics: Humans; Nasal Bone; Nasal Obstruction; Nose Deformities, Acquired; Olfaction Disorders; Open Fracture Reduction; Skull Fractures; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 28468171
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003482 -
The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and... Jul 2023Anosmia and hyposmia significantly affect patients' quality of life and have many etiologies, including trauma, inflammatory conditions including chronic rhinosinusitis,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Anosmia and hyposmia significantly affect patients' quality of life and have many etiologies, including trauma, inflammatory conditions including chronic rhinosinusitis, neoplasm, and viral infections, such as rhinovirus and SARS-CoV-2.
OBJECTIVE
Our purpose was to establish whether a consensus exists regarding optimal management of olfactory dysfunction and to provide insight into the treatment of anosmia in the current climate of increased prevalence secondary to COVID-19. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the literature on the management of non-Chronic-rhinosinusitis- related anosmia/hyposmia.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published since January 1990 using terms combined with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). We included articles evaluating management of anosmia and hyposmia written in the English language, with original data, a minimum of 3 months of follow-up except for COVID-related studies, at least 2 patients, and well-defined and measurable outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 3013 unique titles were returned upon the initial search. Of these, 297 abstracts were examined, yielding 19 full texts meeting inclusion criteria (8 with level 1 evidence, 3 with level 2, 1 with level 3, and 7 with level 4). The studies included a total of 1522 subjects, with follow up ranging from 3 to 72 months, with an exception for COVID related studies. Endpoints were based on clinically significant improvements of olfactory functions as measured through validated smell tests. Treatments with the most robust data were intranasal corticosteroids and olfactory training.
CONCLUSION
The literature on the treatment of anosmia and hyposmia includes randomized trials showing the efficacy of a few modalities. While further research is needed to expand therapeutic options for this debilitating condition, the current literature supports the use of olfactory training and topical corticosteroids.
Topics: Humans; Anosmia; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; Olfaction Disorders; Quality of Life; Smell; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Sinusitis
PubMed: 35959948
DOI: 10.1177/00034894221118186 -
OTO Open 2020Loss of smell and taste are considered potential discriminatory symptoms indicating triaging for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and early case identification.... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Loss of smell and taste are considered potential discriminatory symptoms indicating triaging for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and early case identification. However, the estimated prevalence essential to guide public health policy varies in published literature. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate prevalence of smell and taste loss among COVID-19 patients.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for studies published on the prevalence of smell and taste loss in COVID-19 patients.
REVIEW METHODS
Two authors extracted data on study characteristics and the prevalence of smell and taste loss. Random-effects modeling was used to estimate pooled prevalence. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore potential heterogeneity sources. This study used PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven of 32 studies reported a prevalence of loss of smell, taste, or both from a combined sample of 20,451 COVID-19 patients. The estimated global pooled prevalence of loss of smell among 19,424 COVID-19 patients from 27 studies was 48.47% (95% CI, 33.78%-63.29%). Loss of taste was reported in 20 studies and 8001 patients with an estimated pooled prevalence of 41.47% (95% CI, 3.13%-31.03%), while 13 studies that reported combined loss of smell and taste in 5977 COVID-19 patients indicated a pooled prevalence of 35.04% (95% CI, 22.03%-49.26%).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of smell and taste loss among COVID-19 patients was high globally, and regional differences supported the relevance of these symptoms as important markers. Health workers must consider them as suspicion indices for empirical diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection.
PubMed: 32964177
DOI: 10.1177/2473974X20957975 -
Neuroepidemiology 2024The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of thirteen neurological manifestations in people affected by COVID-19 during the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the prevalence of thirteen neurological manifestations in people affected by COVID-19 during the acute phase and at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up time points.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022325505). MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were used as information sources. Eligible studies included original articles of cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and case series with ≥5 subjects that reported the prevalence and type of neurological manifestations, with a minimum follow-up of 3 months after the acute phase of COVID-19 disease. Two independent reviewers screened studies from January 1, 2020, to June 16, 2022. The following manifestations were assessed: neuromuscular disorders, encephalopathy/altered mental status/delirium, movement disorders, dysautonomia, cerebrovascular disorders, cognitive impairment/dementia, sleep disorders, seizures, syncope/transient loss of consciousness, fatigue, gait disturbances, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache. The pooled prevalence and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated at the six pre-specified times.
RESULTS
126 of 6,565 screened studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, accounting for 1,542,300 subjects with COVID-19 disease. Of these, four studies only reported data on neurological conditions other than the 13 selected. The neurological disorders with the highest pooled prevalence estimates (per 100 subjects) during the acute phase of COVID-19 were anosmia/hyposmia, fatigue, headache, encephalopathy, cognitive impairment, and cerebrovascular disease. At 3-month follow-up, the pooled prevalence of fatigue, cognitive impairment, and sleep disorders was still 20% and higher. At six- and 9-month follow-up, there was a tendency for fatigue, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache to further increase in prevalence. At 12-month follow-up, prevalence estimates decreased but remained high for some disorders, such as fatigue and anosmia/hyposmia. Other neurological disorders had a more fluctuating occurrence.
DISCUSSION
Neurological manifestations were prevalent during the acute phase of COVID-19 and over the 1-year follow-up period, with the highest overall prevalence estimates for fatigue, cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, anosmia/hyposmia, and headache. There was a downward trend over time, suggesting that neurological manifestations in the early post-COVID-19 phase may be long-lasting but not permanent. However, especially for the 12-month follow-up time point, more robust data are needed to confirm this trend.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Anosmia; Prevalence; Cross-Sectional Studies; Nervous System Diseases; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Headache; Sleep Wake Disorders; Fatigue
PubMed: 38272015
DOI: 10.1159/000536352 -
Wellcome Open Research 2020This systematic review had three aims: i) to determine the frequency of anosmia (or other smell disorders) and dysgeusia (or other taste disorders) in COVID-19...
This systematic review had three aims: i) to determine the frequency of anosmia (or other smell disorders) and dysgeusia (or other taste disorders) in COVID-19 patients; ii) to determine whether anosmia or dysgeusia are independently associated with COVID-19 diagnosis; and iii) to determine whether anosmia or dysgeusia are prognostic factors for impaired outcomes among COVID-19 patients. On April 20 , 2020, we search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, Web of Science and MedXriv. We used terms related to COVID-19, smell and taste disorders. We selected case series, cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies. We included studies with COVID-19 patients describing their symptoms; studies that compared smell and taste disorders between COVID-19 patients and otherwise healthy subjects; and studies comparing smell and taste disorders between COVID-19 severe and mild/moderate cases. Because of methodological heterogeneity and the limited number of results, a qualitative synthesis is presented. From 31 reports, we selected six (n=2,757). Six studies reported the proportion of smell and taste disorders among COVID-19 patients. Two reports studied whether smell and taste disorders were independently associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. No reports studied the association with impaired outcomes among COVID-19 patients. The frequency of anosmia ranged between 22%-68%. The definition of taste disorders varied greatly, with dysgeusia present in 33% and ageusia in 20%. People who reported loss of smell and taste had six-fold higher odds of being COVID-19 positive; similarly, anosmia and ageusia were associated with 10-fold higher odds of COVID-19 diagnosis. The frequency of smell and taste disorders is as high as other symptoms, thus, at least anosmia for which the definition was more consistent, could be included in lists of COVID-19 symptoms. Although there is promising evidence, it is premature to conclude that smell and taste disorders are strongly associated with COVID-19 diagnosis. PROSPERO CRD42020181308.
PubMed: 32587902
DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15917.1