SynthesisNeuropsychology review2025
Meta-analysis of Cognitive Function Following Non-severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence of cardiovascular symptoms in post-acute COVID-19 syndrome: a meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Long-term cognitive and autonomic effects of COVID-19 in young adults: a cross-sectional study at 28 months.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Estimated prevalence of post-intensive care cognitive impairment at short-term and long-term follow-ups: a proportional meta-analysis of observational studies.Annals of intensive care · 2025Review
- Six-month follow-up of multidomain cognitive impairment in non-hospitalized individuals with post-COVID-19 syndrome.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024Article
- The Effects of a Single-Session Virtual Rumination Intervention to Enhance Cognitive Functioning in Veterans With Subjective Cognitive Symptoms: Multimethod Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To effectively diagnose and treat subjective cognitive symptoms in post-acute sequalae of COVID-19 (PASC), it is important to understand objective cognitive impairment across the range of acute COVID-19 severity. Despite the importance of this area of research, to our knowledge, there are no current meta-analyses of objective cognitive functioning following non-severe initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this meta-analysis is to describe objective cognitive impairment in individuals with non-severe (mild or moderate) SARS-CoV-2 cases in the post-acute stage of infection. This meta-analysis was pre-registered with Prospero (CRD42021293124) and utilized the PRISMA checklist for reporting guidelines, with screening conducted by at least two independent reviewers for all aspects of the screening and data extraction process. Fifty-nine articles (total participants = 22,060) with three types of study designs met our full criteria. Individuals with non-severe (mild/moderate) initial SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrated worse objective cognitive performance compared to healthy comparison participants. However, those with mild (nonhospitalized) initial SARS-CoV-2 infections had better objective cognitive performance than those with moderate (hospitalized but not requiring ICU care) or severe (hospitalized with ICU care) initial SARS-CoV-2 infections. For studies that used normative data comparisons instead of healthy comparison participants, there was a small and nearly significant effect when compared to normative data. There were high levels of heterogeneity (88.6 to 97.3%), likely reflecting small sample sizes and variations in primary study methodology. Individuals who have recovered from non-severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections may be at risk for cognitive decline or impairment and may benefit from cognitive health interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.