Introduction: Many patients with cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms face diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis. We investigated whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) neurofilament light (NfL) and total-tau (t-tau) could assist in the clinical scenario of differentiating neurodegenerative (ND) from psychiatric disorders (PSY), and rapidly progressive disorders.Methods: Biomarkers were examined in patients from specialist services (ND and PSY) and a national Creutzfeldt-Jakob registry (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease [CJD] and rapidly progressive dementias/atypically rapid variants of common ND, RapidND).

Objective: To assess the level of anxiety among doctors during COVID-19 pandemic and the associated risk factors. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted from 30th April to 16th May, 2020 in Karachi, Pakistan. The data was collected via an online web-based questionnaire. Questionnaire was used to assess anxiety level using GAD-7 scale among health-care professionals and the risk factors playing role in it. Results: One hundred and fifty-one doctors participated in our study. Out of these 151 participants, 69 (45.7%) had mild, 22 (14.6%) had moderate, and 5 (3.3%) had severe symptoms of anxiety, whereas the remaining 55 (36.4%) had no anxiety according to GAD-7 scale. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] GAD-7 scale scores are 6.0 [3.00-9.00]. Females showed more severe degrees of measurement of anxiety symptoms than males. Doctors dealing with COVID-19 patients showed higher level of anxiety as compared to the doctors who were not dealing with COVID-19 patients, having a significant difference (U = 9.697, p = 0.008). One hundred and forty-one (93.4%) participants were concerned about being exposed to COVID-19 at work and 112 (74.2 %) thought they have inadequate protective equipment for safety. Conclusions: During COVID-19 pandemic, doctors exhibited different grades of anxiety. In order for healthcare workers to perform to the best of their capability, certain guidelines and interventions are needed. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.6.3113 How to cite this:Hasan SR, Hamid Z, Jawaid MT, Ali RK. Anxiety among Doctors during COVID-19 Pandemic in Secondary and Tertiary Care Hospitals. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(6):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.6.3113 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Objective: This study was undertaken to identify factors that predict discordance between the screening instruments Neurological Disorders Depression Inventory for Epilepsy (NDDI-E) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and diagnoses made by qualified psychiatrists among patients with seizure disorders. Importantly, this is not a validation study; rather, it investigates clinicodemographic predictors of discordance between screening tests and psychiatric assessment. Methods: Adult patients admitted for inpatient video-electroencephalographic monitoring completed eight psychometric instruments, including the NDDI-E and GAD-7, and psychiatric assessment. Patients were grouped according to agreement between the screening instrument and psychiatrists' diagnoses. Screening was "discordant" if the outcome differed from the psychiatrist's diagnosis, including both false positive and false negative results. Bayesian statistical analyses were used to identify factors associated with discordance. Results: A total of 411 patients met inclusion criteria; mean age was 39.6 years, and 55.5% (n = 228) were female. Depression screening was discordant in 33% of cases (n = 136/411), driven by false positives (n = 76/136, 56%) rather than false negatives (n = 60/136, 44%). Likewise, anxiety screening was discordant in one third of cases (n = 121/411, 29%) due to false positives (n = 60/121, 50%) and false negatives (n = 61/121, 50%). Seven clinical factors were predictive of discordant screening for both depression and anxiety: greater dissociative symptoms, greater patient-reported adverse events, subjective cognitive impairment, negative affect, detachment, disinhibition, and psychoticism. When the analyses were restricted to only patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) or epilepsy, the rate of discordant depression screening was higher in the PNES group (n = 29, 47%) compared to the epilepsy group (n = 70, 30%, Bayes factor for the alternative hypothesis = 4.65). | MATERIALS AND METHODS | SettingData were obtained from patients admitted to VEM units of the comprehensive epilepsy programs at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and the Alfred Hospital, in Melbourne, Australia, between April 2018 and March 2020. The diagnostic procedures have previously been described. 17 Patients admitted for VEM undergo comprehensive epileptological and psychiatric assessments. Seizure-and medication-related clinical data were extracted from medical records.Significance: Patients with seizure disorders who self-report a variety of psychiatric and other symptoms should be evaluated more thoroughly for depression and anxiety, regardless of screening test results, especially if they have PNES and not epilepsy.Clinical assessment by a qualified psychiatrist remains essential in diagnosing depressive and anxiety disorders among such patients.