-
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 -
Journal of Global Health Jun 2021We determined the clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 and identified if these are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis of data on pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19: Clinical presentation, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes based on COVID-19 severity.
BACKGROUND
We determined the clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 and identified if these are different based on COVID-19 severity.
METHODS
We included all observational studies on pregnant women with confirmed COVID-19 reporting clinical presentation, risk factors, and pregnancy and perinatal outcomes. We included all studies published between Dec/2019-Feb/2021 in Medline, Embase, the WHO COVID-19 databases, and clinicaltrials.gov. The methodological quality of cohort and case-series was assessed using NHLBI criteria.
RESULTS
31 016 pregnant women from 62 studies were included. Women were an average of 30.9 years of age, most (77.7%) were in the third trimester, and 16.4% developed severe COVID-19. Nearly half were asymptomatic, while the most commonly reported symptoms were cough, fever, fatigue, and anosmia/ageusia. About 7% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 8% required mechanical ventilation, and 2% of the women died. Almost 80% of women delivered; 48.4% had cesarean births. Among newborns, 23.4% were preterm (<37 weeks), 16.6% were low birth weight, and 23.7% were admitted to neonatal ICU. A total of 21 stillbirths (1.6%) and 24 neonatal deaths (1.6%) were recorded, while 50 babies (3.5%) were COVID-19 positive. Studies comparing pregnant women with severe and non-severe COVID-19 showed that women with severe COVID-19 were 3.7 years older and the risk of severe COVID-19 was 1.5 times higher among women >35 years. The risk of severe COVID-19 was significantly higher among women who were obese, had smoked, diabetic, and had pre-eclampsia. The risk of preterm birth was almost 2.4 folds among women with severe COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests a heightened risk of COVID-19 severity and adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes among women with certain demographic and health profiles. These findings can inform the formation of current guidelines; however, these should be constantly updated as the global COVID-19 scenario unfolds.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO: CRD42020182048.
Topics: Adult; COVID-19; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pandemics; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnant Women; Premature Birth; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34221361
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.11.05018 -
European Journal of Internal Medicine Oct 2021Single studies support the presence of several post-COVID-19 symptoms; however, no meta-analysis differentiating hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Single studies support the presence of several post-COVID-19 symptoms; however, no meta-analysis differentiating hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients has been published to date. This meta-analysis analyses the prevalence of post-COVID-19 symptoms in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients recovered from COVID-19 .
METHODS
MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to March 15, 2021. Peer-reviewed studies or preprints reporting data on post-COVID-19 symptoms collected by personal, telephonic or electronic interview were included. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used a random-effects models for meta-analytical pooled prevalence of each post-COVID-19 symptom, and I² statistics for heterogeneity. Data synthesis was categorized at 30, 60, and ≥90 days after .
RESULTS
From 15,577 studies identified, 29 peer-reviewed studies and 4 preprints met inclusion criteria. The sample included 15,244 hospitalized and 9011 non-hospitalized patients. The methodological quality of most studies was fair. The results showed that 63.2, 71.9 and 45.9% of the sample exhibited ≥one post-COVID-19 symptom at 30, 60, or ≥90days after onset/hospitalization. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent symptoms with a pooled prevalence ranging from 35 to 60% depending on the follow-up. Other post-COVID-19 symptoms included cough (20-25%), anosmia (10-20%), ageusia (15-20%) or joint pain (15-20%). Time trend analysis revealed a decreased prevalence 30days after with an increase after 60days .
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that post-COVID-19 symptoms are present in more than 60% of patients infected by SARS-CoV‑2. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent post-COVID-19 symptoms, particularly 60 and ≥90 days after.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Peer Review; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2; Survivors
PubMed: 34167876
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.06.009 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Aug 2021We reviewed the literature on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing in patients with altered olfactory/gustatory function due to COVID-19 for evidence of viral neuroinvasion.
OBJECTIVE
We reviewed the literature on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing in patients with altered olfactory/gustatory function due to COVID-19 for evidence of viral neuroinvasion.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of Medline and Embase to identify publications that described at least one patient with COVID-19 who had altered olfactory/gustatory function and had CSF testing performed. The search ranged from December 1, 2019 to November 18, 2020.
RESULTS
We identified 51 publications that described 70 patients who met inclusion criteria. Of 51 patients who had CSF SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, 3 (6%) patients had positive results and 1 (2%) patient had indeterminate results. Cycle threshold (Ct; the number of amplification cycles required for the target gene to exceed the threshold, which is inversely related to viral load) was not provided for the patients with a positive PCR. The patient with indeterminate results had a Ct of 37 initially, then no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on repeat testing. Of 6 patients who had CSF SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing, 3 (50%) were positive. Testing to distinguish intrathecal antibody synthesis from transudation of antibodies to the CSF via breakdown of the blood-brain barrier was performed in 1/3 (33%) patients; this demonstrated antibody transmission to the CSF via transudation.
CONCLUSION
Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in CSF via PCR or evaluation for intrathecal antibody synthesis appears to be rare in patients with altered olfactory/gustatory function. While pathology studies are needed, our review suggests it is unlikely that these symptoms are related to viral neuroinvasion.
Topics: Biomarkers; COVID-19; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; Taste Disorders
PubMed: 34146842
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106760 -
Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health Aug 2021Among Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, Olfactory (OD) and Gustatory (GD) Dysfunctions (OGD) have drawn considerable attention, becoming a sort of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Among Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, Olfactory (OD) and Gustatory (GD) Dysfunctions (OGD) have drawn considerable attention, becoming a sort of hallmark of the disease. Many have speculated on the pathogenesis and clinical characteristics of these disturbances; however, no definite answers have been produced on the topic. With this systematic review, we aimed to collect all the available evidence regarding the prevalence of OGD, the timing of their onset and their resolution, their rate of recovery and their role as diagnostic and prognostic tools for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.
METHODS
A systematic review comprising all the observational studies that reported the prevalence and/or the longitudinal trajectories of OGD in COVID-19 patients, as self-reported by patients or measured through objective psychophysical tests.
RESULTS
After the selection process, 155 studies were included, with a total of 70,920 patients and 105,291 not-infected individuals. Prevalence reports were extremely variable across studies, with wide ranges for OD (0%-98%) and GD (0-89%) prevalence. OGD occurred early during the disease course and only rarely preceded other symptoms; out of 30 studies with a follow-up time of at least 20 days, only in 5 studies OGD fully resolved in more than 90% of patients. OGD had low sensitivity and high specificity for SARS-CoV-2 infection; accuracy of OD and GD for infection identification was higher than 80% in 10 out of 33 studies and in 8 out of 22 studies considered, respectively. 28 out of 30 studies that studied the association between OGD and disease severity found how OGD were associated with lower rates of severe pneumonia, hospitalization and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS
OGD seem to be highly prevalent in SARS-CoV-2 infection. They occur early, concomitantly with other symptoms and often persist after recovery, in some cases for months; whether a full recovery eventually occurs in all cases is not clear yet. OGD are good predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with a milder disease course.
PubMed: 34027497
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbih.2021.100268 -
Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2022SARS-CoV-2 is the pathogen of COVID-19. The virus is composed of the spike, membrane and envelope. On physiological smell, odoriferous substances bind to proteins... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
SARS-CoV-2 is the pathogen of COVID-19. The virus is composed of the spike, membrane and envelope. On physiological smell, odoriferous substances bind to proteins secreted by sustentacular cells in order to be processed by olfactory receptor neurons. Olfactory disorder is one of the main manifestations of COVID-19, however, research is still required to clarify the mechanism involved in SARS-CoV-2 induced anosmia.
OBJECTIVE
This article aims to analyze current scientific evidence intended to elucidate the pathophysiological relationship between COVID-19 and the cause of olfactory disorders.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Scopus and ScienceDirect were used to compose this article. The research was conducted on November 24th, 2020. Original articles with experimental studies in human, animal and in vitro, short communications, viewpoint, published in the English language and between 2019 and 2020 were included, all related to the pathophysiological relationship between olfactory disorders and COVID-19 infection.
RESULTS
Both human cell receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are essential for the SARS-CoV-2 entrance. These receptors are mostly present in the olfactory epithelium cells, therefore, the main hypothesis is that anosmia is caused due to damage to non-neuronal cells which, thereafter, affects the normal olfactory metabolism. Furthermore, magnetic resonance imaging studies exhibit a relationship between a reduction on the neuronal epithelium and the olfactory bulb atrophy. Damage to non-neuronal cells explains the average recovery lasting a few weeks. This injury can be exacerbated by an aggressive immune response, which leads to damage to neuronal cells and stem cells inducing a persistent anosmia. Conductive anosmia is not sufficient to explain most cases of COVID-19 induced anosmia.
CONCLUSION
Olfactory disorders such as anosmia and hyposmia can be caused by COVID-19, the main mechanism is associated with olfactory epithelium damage, targeting predominantly non-neuronal cells. However, neuronal cells can also be affected, worsening the condition of olfactory loss.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Animals; Anosmia; COVID-19; Humans; Olfaction Disorders; SARS-CoV-2; Smell
PubMed: 33965353
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.04.001 -
F1000Research 2021: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anosmia and dysgeusia in SARS-CoV-2 infection: incidence and effects on COVID-19 severity and mortality, and the possible pathobiology mechanisms - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
: The present study aimed to determine the global prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and to assess their association with severity and mortality of COVID-19. Moreover, this study aimed to discuss the possible pathobiological mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. : Available articles from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and preprint databases (MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and Researchsquare) were searched on November 10th, 2020. Data on the characteristics of the study (anosmia, dysgeusia, and COVID-19) were extracted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess research quality. Moreover, the pooled prevalence of anosmia and dysgeusia were calculated, and the association between anosmia and dysgeusia in presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was assessed using the Z test. : Out of 32,142 COVID-19 patients from 107 studies, anosmia was reported in 12,038 patients with a prevalence of 38.2% (95% CI: 36.5%, 47.2%); whereas, dysgeusia was reported in 11,337 patients out of 30,901 COVID-19 patients from 101 studies, with prevalence of 36.6% (95% CI: 35.2%, 45.2%), worldwide. Furthermore, the prevalence of anosmia was 10.2-fold higher (OR: 10.21; 95% CI: 6.53, 15.96, < 0.001) and that of dysgeusia was 8.6-fold higher (OR: 8.61; 95% CI: 5.26, 14.11, < 0.001) in COVID-19 patients compared to those with other respiratory infections or COVID-19 like illness. To date, no study has assessed the association of anosmia and dysgeusia with severity and mortality of COVID-19. : Anosmia and dysgeusia are prevalent in COVID-19 patients compared to those with the other non-COVID-19 respiratory infections. Several possible mechanisms have been hypothesized; however, future studies are warranted to elucidate the definitive mechanisms of anosmia and dysgeusia in COVID-19. PROSPERO CRD42020223204.
Topics: Anosmia; COVID-19; Dysgeusia; Humans; Incidence
PubMed: 33824716
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.28393.1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.
Topics: Ageusia; Ambulatory Care; Anosmia; Arthralgia; Bias; COVID-19; Cough; Diarrhea; Dyspnea; Fatigue; Fever; Headache; Humans; Myalgia; Outpatient Clinics, Hospital; Pandemics; Physical Examination; Primary Health Care; SARS-CoV-2; Selection Bias; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 33620086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub2 -
Reviews in the Neurosciences Apr 2021The ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 27 million confirmed cases and 8,90,000 deaths all around the world. Verity of viral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The ongoing pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 27 million confirmed cases and 8,90,000 deaths all around the world. Verity of viral infections can infect the nervous system; these viral infections can present a wide range of manifestation. The aim of the current study was to systematically review the COVID-19 associated central nervous system manifestations, mental and neurological symptoms. For that we conducted a comprehensive systematic literature review of four online databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Embase. All relevant articles that reported psychiatric/psychological symptoms or disorders in COVID-19 without considering time and language restrictions were assessed. All the study procedures were performed based on the PRISMA criteria. Due to the screening, 14 studies were included. The current study result indicated that, the pooled prevalence of CNS or mental associated disorders with 95% CI was 50.68% (6.68-93.88). The most prevalence symptoms were hyposmia/anosmia/olfactory dysfunction (number of study: 10) with 36.20% (14.99-60.51). Only one study reported numbness/paresthesia and dysphonia. Pooled prevalence of numbness/paresthesia and dysphonia was 5.83% (2.17-12.25) and 2.39% (10.75-14.22). The pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety was 3.52% (2.62-4.54) and 13.92% (9.44-19.08). Our findings demonstrate that COVID-19 has a certain relation with neurological symptoms. The hypsomia, anosmia or olfactory dysfunction was most frequent symptom. Other symptoms were headache or dizziness, dysgeusia or ageusia, dysphonia and fatigue. Depression, anxiety, and confusion were less frequent symptoms.
Topics: Anosmia; Anxiety; COVID-19; Depression; Dysgeusia; Dysphonia; Fatigue; Headache; Humans; Hypesthesia; Nervous System Diseases; Paresthesia; Prevalence; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33618441
DOI: 10.1515/revneuro-2020-0108 -
The Egyptian Journal of Neurology,... 2021COVID-19 infection can show various manifestation, including neurologic manifestations, such as , , or , and causes the neurologic disorder such as stroke,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 infection can show various manifestation, including neurologic manifestations, such as , , or , and causes the neurologic disorder such as stroke, Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalopathy, and many more.
AIM
To briefly review neurologic manifestation in COVID-19 infection in the Asia region (South East Asia and the Western Pacific Region).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review uses the PRISMA statement and checklist. The source for reviewed article was performed in PubMed that were published between December 2019 to September 2020 with the latest 1 year of publication. Study titles were first screened, then reviewed by title and abstract and then the last review, we tested full text and applied eligibility criteria.
RESULTS
We found a total of 9 retrieved articles from the electronic database. Among these 9 articles, 5 of them are case report, 1 case series, 1 prospective multi-center cohort study, 1 retrospective multi-center study, and 1 retrospective observational study. All articles reported confirmed COVID-19, confirmation by positive swab test using the real-time RT-PCR method, with neurologic manifestations, disorder, or syndrome on presentation or found during hospital stay. In case of neurologic disorder or syndrome, the studies reported encephalitis and ADEM, acute cerebrovascular disease, acute symptomatic seizure, and Guillain-Barré syndrome with acute cerebrovascular disease as the most common neurologic disorder associated with COVID-19 infection, followed by encephalitis.
CONCLUSION
COVID-19 also affects the brain, which may result in a global or focal neurologic manifestation. Healthcare provider treating patient with COVID-19 infection should also be aware of neurologic manifestation associated with COVID-19 infection to improve patient's outcome.Guillain-Barre syndrome, encephalopathy, and many more. This review will briefly review neurologic manifestation in COVID-19 infection in the Asian region (South East Asia and the Western Pacific Region. A total of 9 retrieved articles from the electronic database reported confirmed COVID-19, confirmation by RT-PCR method, with neurologic manifestation, disorder, or syndrome on presentation or found during hospital stay. Healthcare provider treating patient with COVID-19 infection should also be aware of neurologic manifestation associated with COVID-19 infection to improve patient's outcome.
PubMed: 33613024
DOI: 10.1186/s41983-021-00279-3