There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. 13 292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% (95% CI 35.2% to 51.3%), n=15 975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% (95% CI 27.9% to 53.5%), n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% (95% CI 31.6% to 44.4%), n=21 101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% (95% CI 29.8% to 45.3%), n=13 686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% (95% CI 19.8% to 31.3%), n=66 268, 76 studies), depression (23.0% (95% CI 11.8% to 40.2%), n=43 128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% (95% CI 16.1% to 26.1%), n=64 613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% (5.6% to 37.7%), n=42 566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% (95% CI 4.4% to 14.8%), n=49 326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic’s early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.

Functional symptoms are a common mimic of stroke in acute stroke settings, but there are no clinical guidelines on how to identify or support patients with these symptoms and scant research on their demographic and clinical profile. This paper explores the presentation of patients with functional stroke symptoms at admission to an acute stroke unit and 2-month follow-up. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study across four South East London acute stroke units, with a two-month follow-up. Demographic information, clinical data and GP attendances were recorded. Patients completed self-report measures: Cognitive Behavioural Responses Questionnaire short version, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Work and Social Adjustment Scale and Short Form Health Survey. Results Fifty-six patients (mean age: 50.9 years) were recruited at baseline; 40 with isolated functional symptoms, the remaining functional symptoms in addition to vascular stroke. Thirty-one completed self-report follow-up measures. Of 56 participants, 63% were female. Patients presented symptoms across modalities, with unilateral and limb weakness the most frequent. There was inconsistent and ambiguous recording of symptoms on medical records. Approximately 40% of patients reported levels of anxiety and depression above the threshold indicating a probable diagnosis. Higher anxiety was associated with greater resting or all-or-nothing behaviours, embarrassment avoidance and symptom focussing on the CBRQ measure. Only one general health measure on the SF-36, physical functioning, improved at follow-up. Less than half of participants who responded at follow-up were accessing a treatment, though 82% had ongoing symptoms. Conclusion Patients with functional symptoms in stroke settings report substantial distress, associated with cognitive-behavioural responses to symptoms. Follow-up data suggest recovery can be slow, indicating access to supportive interventions should be improved.

Objectives There is accumulating evidence of the neurological and neuropsychiatric features of infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe the characteristics of the early literature and estimate point prevalences for neurological and neuropsychiatric manifestations. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL up to 18 July 2020 for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series. Studies reporting prevalences of neurological or neuropsychiatric symptoms were synthesised into meta-analyses to estimate pooled prevalence. Results 13,292 records were screened by at least two authors to identify 215 included studies, of which there were 37 cohort studies, 15 case-control studies, 80 cross-sectional studies and 83 case series from 30 countries. 147 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The symptoms with the highest prevalence were anosmia (43.1% [35.2-51.3], n=15,975, 63 studies), weakness (40.0% [27.9-53.5], n=221, 3 studies), fatigue (37.8% [31.6-44.4], n=21,101, 67 studies), dysgeusia (37.2% [30.0-45.3], n=13,686, 52 studies), myalgia (25.1% [19.8-31.3], n=66.268, 76 studies), depression (23.0 % [11.8-40.2], n=43,128, 10 studies), headache (20.7% [95% CI 16.1-26.1], n=64,613, 84 studies), anxiety (15.9% [5.6-37.7], n=42,566, 9 studies) and altered mental status (8.2% [4.4-14.8], n=49,326, 19 studies). Heterogeneity for most clinical manifestations was high. Conclusions Neurological and neuropsychiatric symptoms of COVID-19 in the pandemic's early phase are varied and common. The neurological and psychiatric academic communities should develop systems to facilitate high-quality methodologies, including more rapid examination of the longitudinal course of neuropsychiatric complications of newly emerging diseases and their relationship to neuroimaging and inflammatory biomarkers.

Background Studies have reported elevated rates of dissociative symptoms and comorbid dissociative disorders in functional neurological disorder (FND); however, a comprehensive review is lacking. Aims To systematically review the severity of dissociative symptoms and prevalence of comorbid dissociative disorders in FND and summarise their biological and clinical associations. Method We searched Embase, PsycInfo and MEDLINE up to June 2021, combining terms for FND and dissociation. Studies were eligible if reporting dissociative symptom scores or rates of comorbid dissociative disorder in FND samples. Risk of bias was appraised using modified Newcastle–Ottawa criteria. The findings were synthesised qualitatively and dissociative symptom scores were included in a meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020173263). Results Seventy-five studies were eligible (FND n = 3940; control n = 3073), most commonly prospective case–control studies (k = 54). Dissociative disorders were frequently comorbid in FND. Psychoform dissociation was elevated in FND compared with healthy (g = 0.90, 95% CI 0.66–1.14, I2 = 70%) and neurological controls (g = 0.56, 95% CI 0.19–0.92, I2 = 67%). Greater psychoform dissociation was observed in FND samples with seizure symptoms versus healthy controls (g = 0.94, 95% CI 0.65–1.22, I2 = 42%) and FND samples with motor symptoms (g = 0.40, 95% CI −0.18 to 1.00, I2 = 54%). Somatoform dissociation was elevated in FND versus healthy controls (g = 1.80, 95% CI 1.25–2.34, I2 = 75%). Dissociation in FND was associated with more severe functional symptoms, worse quality of life and brain alterations. Conclusions Our findings highlight the potential clinical utility of assessing patients with FND for dissociative symptomatology. However, fewer studies investigated FND samples with motor symptoms and heterogeneity between studies and risk of bias were high. Rigorous investigation of the prevalence, features and mechanistic relevance of dissociation in FND is needed.