ABSTRACT
The present study aims to provide a critical overview of the literature on the relationships between post-acute COVID-19 infection and cognitive impairment, highlighting the limitations and confounding factors. A systematic search of articles published from 1 January 2020 to 1 July 2022 was performed in PubMed/Medline. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies using validated instruments for the assessment of cognitive impairment were included. Out of 5515 screened records, 72 studies met the inclusion criteria. The available evidence revealed the presence of impairment in executive functions, speed of processing, attention and memory in subjects recovered from COVID-19. However, several limitations of the literature reviewed should be highlighted: most studies were performed on small samples, not stratified by severity of disease and age, used as a cross-sectional or a short-term longitudinal design and provided a limited assessment of the different cognitive domains. Few studies investigated the neurobiological correlates of cognitive deficits in individuals recovered from COVID-19. Further studies with an adequate methodological design are needed for an in-depth characterization of cognitive impairment in individuals recovered from COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The global COVID-19 pandemic has affected the economy, daily life, and mental/physical health. The latter includes the use of electroencephalography (EEG) in clinical practice and research. We report a survey of the impact of COVID-19 on the use of clinical EEG in practice and research in several countries, and the recommendations of an international panel of experts for the safe application of EEG during and after this pandemic. METHODS: Fifteen clinicians from 8 different countries and 25 researchers from 13 different countries reported the impact of COVID-19 on their EEG activities, the procedures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and precautions planned or already implemented during the reopening of EEG activities. RESULTS: Of the 15 clinical centers responding, 11 reported a total stoppage of all EEG activities, while 4 reduced the number of tests per day. In research settings, all 25 laboratories reported a complete stoppage of activity, with 7 laboratories reopening to some extent since initial closure. In both settings, recommended precautions for restarting or continuing EEG recording included strict hygienic rules, social distance, and assessment for infection symptoms among staff and patients/participants. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic interfered with the use of EEG recordings in clinical practice and even more in clinical research. We suggest updated best practices to allow safe EEG recordings in both research and clinical settings. The continued use of EEG is important in those with psychiatric diseases, particularly in times of social alarm such as the COVID-19 pandemic.