The nature and extent of persistent neuropsychiatric symptoms after COVID-19 are not established. To help inform mental health service planning in the pandemic recovery phase, we systematically determined the prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in survivors of COVID-19. For this pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID CRD42021239750) we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO to 20th February 2021, plus our own curated database. We included peer-reviewed studies reporting neuropsychiatric symptoms at post-acute or later time-points after COVID-19 infection, and in control groups where available. For each study a minimum of two authors extracted summary data. For each symptom we calculated a pooled prevalence using generalised linear mixed models. Heterogeneity was measured with I2. Subgroup analyses were conducted for COVID-19 hospitalisation, severity, and duration of follow-up. From 2,844 unique titles we included 51 studies (n=18,917 patients). The mean duration of follow-up after COVID-19 was 77 days (range 14-182 days). Study quality was most commonly moderate. The most prevalent neuropsychiatric symptom was sleep disturbance (pooled prevalence=27·4% [95%CI 21·4-34·4%]), followed by fatigue (24·4% [17·5-32·9%]), objective cognitive impairment (20·2% [10·3-35·7%]), anxiety (19·1%[13·3-26·8%]), and post-traumatic stress (15·7% [9·9-24·1%]). Only two studies reported symptoms in control groups, both reporting higher frequencies in COVID-19 survivors versus controls. Between-study heterogeneity was high (I2=79·6%-98·6%). There was little or no evidence of differential symptom prevalence based on hospitalisation status, severity, or follow-up duration. Neuropsychiatric symptoms are common and persistent after recovery from COVID-19. The literature on longer-term consequences is still maturing, but indicates a particularly high prevalence of insomnia, fatigue, cognitive impairment, and anxiety disorders in the first six months after infection.

Aims Suicide accounts for 2.2% of all years of life lost worldwide. We aimed to establish whether infectious epidemics are associated with any changes in the incidence of suicide or the period prevalence of self-harm, or thoughts of suicide or self-harm, with a secondary objective of establishing the frequency of these outcomes. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and AMED were searched from inception to 9 September 2020. Studies of infectious epidemics reporting outcomes of (a) death by suicide, (b) self-harm or (c) thoughts of suicide or self-harm were identified. A random-effects model meta-analysis for the period prevalence of thoughts of suicide or self-harm was conducted. Results In total, 1354 studies were screened with 57 meeting eligibility criteria, of which 7 described death by suicide, 9 by self-harm, and 45 thoughts of suicide or self-harm. The observation period ranged from 1910 to 2020 and included epidemics of Spanish Flu, severe acute respiratory syndrome, human monkeypox, Ebola virus disease and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Regarding death by suicide, data with a clear longitudinal comparison group were available for only two epidemics: SARS in Hong Kong, finding an increase in suicides among the elderly, and COVID-19 in Japan, finding no change in suicides among children and adolescents. In terms of self-harm, five studies examined emergency department attendances in epidemic and non-epidemic periods, of which four found no difference and one showed a reduction during the epidemic. In studies of thoughts of suicide or self-harm, one large survey showed a substantial increase in period prevalence compared to non-epidemic periods, but smaller studies showed no difference. As a secondary objective, a meta-analysis of thoughts of suicide and self-harm found that the pooled prevalence was 8.0% overall (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2–12.0%; 14 820 of 99 238 cases in 24 studies) over a time period of between seven days and six months. The quality assessment found 42 studies were of low quality, nine of moderate quality and six of high quality. Conclusions There is little robust evidence on the association of infectious epidemics with suicide, self-harm and thoughts of suicide or self-harm. There was an increase in suicides among the elderly in Hong Kong during SARS and no change in suicides among young people in Japan during COVID-19, but it is unclear how far these findings may be generalised. The development of up-to-date self-harm and suicide statistics to monitor the effect of the current pandemic is an urgent priority.

Regenerative medicine is an emerging field that centers on the restoration and regeneration of functional components of damaged tissue. Tissue engineering is an application of regenerative medicine and seeks to create functional tissue components and whole organs. Using 3D printing technologies, native tissue mimics can be created utilizing biomaterials and living cells. Recently, regenerative medicine has begun to employ 3D bioprinting methods to create highly specialized tissue models to improve upon conventional tissue engineering methods. Here, we review the use of 3D bioprinting in the advancement of tissue engineering by describing the process of 3D bioprinting and its advantages over other tissue engineering methods. Materials and techniques in bioprinting are also reviewed, in addition to future clinical applications, challenges, and future directions of the field.

In the United States, trauma claims the lives of over 150,000 civilians each year. In military settings, trauma and exsanguination result in 50% of combat related deaths. The majority of these deaths result from uncontrolled non-compressible hemorrhage. Non-compressible hemorrhage often results from deep vascular injuries within the torso, however can also occur secondary to penetrating injuries that involve the extremities. Given the high mortality rates for non-compressible hemorrhage, rapid and effective management of patients suffering from hemorrhage is essential to good patient outcomes. Consequently, there has been increasing interest in solutions for point-of-injury hemorrhage control in trauma and military medicine. Undoubtedly there is a great need for prehospital hemostatic interventions that can be deployed by trained and untrained personnel. Since 2001, various hemostatic agents have been developed, each with its advantages based upon the type and severity of injury, wound size, wound location, accessibility to injury site, and the coagulation status of the patient. These agents are often used in the military setting as a temporizing measure prior to definitive therapy and include techniques such as resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) and bioengineered agents including ResQFoam, RevMedx's XSTAT, Tranexamic acid (TXA), and QuikClot Combat Gauze (QCG). Here, we review the indications, composition, technique, efficacy, and outcomes of these hemostatic agents.