Highlights Awareness of atypical clinical presentation of COVID patients. Continued sharing and publishing of case series to better understand symptoms, signs, and prognosis of patients with COVID. Continued studies needed to fully undertstand the long term consequences of COVID on the neurological system.

Purpose Vaccination is a cost-efficient intervention to slow the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aims to assess the population's willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine in Jordan and investigate potential determinants of their acceptance Materials and Methods This study used an online survey distributed in November 2020, before introducing the vaccine, with items investigating socio-demographic characteristics, seasonal flu vaccination history, COVID-19 vaccine acceptance once available, and factors affecting their decision-making. Also, “COVID-19 risk perception” and beliefs toward COVID-19 vaccine benefits and barriers were assessed. Results A total of 2,208 participants completed the survey with a participation rate of 13.1%. The mean±standard deviation age was 33.2±13.5, and 55.7% were females. Study participants were almost equally distributed between willingness, unwillingness, and indecision to take the COVID-19 vaccine (30.4%, 36.4%, and 31.5%, respectively). Younger adults, males, and those who were not married, do not have children, have a bachelor or higher education, employees or being students, healthcare workers, and those who reported receiving flu vaccine had higher rates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance compared to their counterparts (p<0.001 for each category). COVID-19 risk perception, and perceived vaccine benefits, and barriers were significant predictors of intention. Among those undecided or unwilling to take the COVID-19 vaccine, its safety and side effects were the most common concerns. Conclusion The low rate of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in a developing country is alarming, and a significant proportion are indecisive. Interventions to elevate vaccine acceptance by addressing its safety and efficacy and targeting vulnerable groups are recommended.

BACKGROUND:Comparative effectiveness research has a vital role in recent health reform and policies. Specialty training is one of these provider-side variables, and surgeons who were trained in different specialties may have different outcomes on performing the same procedure. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of spine surgeon specialty (neurosurgery vs orthopedic surgery) on early perioperative outcome measures of elective anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) for degenerative spine diseases. METHODS: This was a retrospective, 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. In total, 21 211 patients were reviewed from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Propensity score matching and subgroup analysis were performed. RESULTS: In both groups (single-level/multilevel ACDF), patients operated on by neurosurgeons had longer operation time (133 vs 104 min/164 vs 138 min), shorter total hospital stay (24 vs 41 h/25 vs 46 h), and lower rates of return to operating room (0.7% vs 2.1%/0.6% vs 2.4%), nonhome discharge (1.2% vs 4.6%/1.0% vs 4.9%), discharge after postoperative day 1 (6.7% vs 11.9%/10.1% vs 18.9%), perioperative blood transfusion (0.4% vs 2.1%/0.6% vs 3.1%), and sepsis (0.2% vs 0.7%/0.1% vs 0.7%; P < .05). In the singlelevel ACDF group, patients operated on by neurosurgeons had lower readmission (1.9% vs 4.1%) and unplanned intubation rates (0.1% vs 1.1%; P < .05). Other outcome measures and mortality rates were similar among the 2 cohorts in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our analysis found significant differences in early perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. These differences might have significant clinical and cost implications for patients, physicians, program directors, payers, and health systems.