Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36046159›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Long-covid cognitive impairment: Cognitive assessment and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping correlation in a Brazilian cohort.

José Wagner Leonel Tavares-Júnior, Danilo Nunes Oliveira, Jean Breno Silveira da Silva, Werbety Lucas Queiroz Feitosa, Artur Victor Menezes Sousa, Letícia Chaves Vieira Cunha, Safira de Brito Gaspar, Carmem Meyve Pereira Gomes, Laís Lacerda Brasil de Oliveira, Caroline Aquino Moreira-Nunes and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. DoFrontiers in neuroscience · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

José Wagner Leonel Tavares-JúniorNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Danilo Nunes OliveiraNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Jean Breno Silveira da SilvaDrug Research and Development Center (NPDM), Pharmacogenetics Laboratory, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Werbety Lucas Queiroz FeitosaNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Artur Victor Menezes SousaNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Letícia Chaves Vieira CunhaNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Safira de Brito GasparCenter of Health Sciences, State University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Carmem Meyve Pereira GomesCenter of Health Sciences, State University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Laís Lacerda Brasil de OliveiraDrug Research and Development Center (NPDM), Pharmacogenetics Laboratory, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Caroline Aquino Moreira-NunesDrug Research and Development Center (NPDM), Pharmacogenetics Laboratory, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Raquel Carvalho MontenegroDrug Research and Development Center (NPDM), Pharmacogenetics Laboratory, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Manoel Alves Sobreira-NetoNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Pedro Braga-NetoNeurology Section, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Universidade Federal do Ceará · BRUniversidade Estadual do Ceará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Few studies have objectively evaluated cognitive deficits after the acute phase of COVID-19 disease. Moreover, the role of apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotypes in cognitive decline in patients with COVID-19 has not been evaluated yet. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in confirmed cases of COVID-19 patients with neurological symptoms that persisted for more than 3 months from the onset. We determined APOE genotypes. Results: The final sample consisted of 141 patients. The most frequent APOE genotype was E3/E3 ( Discussion: Hospitalized patients had more severe infection with a greater possibility of systemic complications, greater inflammatory response, and prolonged hospitalization, which could impact cognitive performance. Cognitive impairment in patients with COVID-19 does not necessarily involve specific APOE polymorphisms. However, psychiatric disorders may also be responsible for cognitive complaints. Cognitive complaints are frequent in patients with COVID-19, even after the acute phase of the disease and in mild cases. Hospitalized participants and depressed patients may have a higher risk of cognitive impairment. APOE genotypes or haplotypes may not significantly play a role in COVID-19 cognitive impairment.

Indexed as

cognitive impairmentCOVID-19dementiarisk factorSARS-CoV-2 infection

Identifiers

PMID36046159
PMCPMC9423011
OpenAlexW4291582944

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.