Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32437679›Full record

SynthesisThe lancet. Psychiatry2020

Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jonathan P Rogers, Edward Chesney, Dominic Oliver, Thomas A Pollak, Philip McGuire, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Michael S Zandi, Glyn Lewis, Anthony S David

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The lancet. Psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 1,211 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,211citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
192.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04715477 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Intensive Care Anxiety in SARS-CoV-2 (COVID 19) Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorDerince Training and Research HospitalRan2021 to 2021Enrolled100ConditionsAnxietyArmsHospital Anxiety Depression Measure
NCT04795557 phase2 / phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Effect of ADAPT232 Supplementation on Recovery of Patients in Rehabilitation Period in Long COVID-19: a Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSwedish Herbal Institute ABRan2021 to 2021Enrolled100ConditionsCovid19ArmsADAPT-232 oral solution, Placebo oral solution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1,211 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2,497 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Five-decade prevalence of delirium in pneumonia, risk factors and associated mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Neurocognitive Impairment in Long COVID: A Systematic Review.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

1,151 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jonathan P RogersDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK. Electronic address: jonathan.rogers@ucl.ac.uk.
Edward ChesneySouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Psychosis Studies, King's College London, London, UK.
Dominic OliverDepartment of Psychosis Studies, King's College London, London, UK.
Thomas A PollakSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Department of Psychosis Studies, King's College London, London, UK.
Philip McGuireDepartment of Psychosis Studies, King's College London, London, UK.
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Psychosis Studies, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Michael S ZandiUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Anthony S DavidUCL Institute of Mental Health, University College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity College London · GBNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N013700/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 102186/B/13/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBefore the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19.

methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I

findings1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5-36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7-40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6-44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2-42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5-50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5-14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6-16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7-17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7-17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1-24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1-23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9-37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0-100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7-42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1-18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1-19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1-84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality.

interpretationIf infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term.

fundingWellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.

Indexed as

PandemicsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19FatigueHumansMental DisordersNervous System DiseasesPneumonia, ViralSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Identifiers

PMID32437679
PMCPMC7234781
OpenAlexW3025282583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.