Neuropsychiatric symptoms emerged early in the COVID-19 pandemic as a key feature of the virus, with research confirming a range of neuropsychiatric manifestations linked to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, the persistence of neurological symptoms in the post-acute and chronic phases remains unclear. This meta-analysis assesses the long-term neurological effects of COVID-19 in recovered patients, providing insights for mental health service planning. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, and CENTRAL, up to March 22, 2024. Studies evaluating the prevalence of long-term neurological symptoms in COVID-19 survivors with at least six months of follow-up were included. Pooled prevalence estimates, subgroup analyses, and meta-regression were performed, and publication bias was assessed. The prevalence rates for the different symptoms were as follows: fatigue 43.3% (95% CI [36.1-50.9%]), memory disorders 27.8% (95% CI [20.1-37.1%]), cognitive impairment 27.1% (95% CI [20.4-34.9%]), sleep disorders 24.4% (95% CI [18.1-32.1%]), concentration impairment 23.8% (95% CI [17.2-31.9%]), headache 20.3% (95% CI [15-26.9%]), dizziness 16% (95% CI [9.5-25.7%]), stress 15.9% (95% CI [10.2-24%]), depression 14.0% (95% CI [10.1-19.2%]), anxiety 13.2% (95% CI [9.6-17.9%]), and migraine 13% (95% CI [2.2-49.8%]). Significant heterogeneity was observed across all symptoms. Meta-regression analysis showed higher stress, fatigue, and headache in females, and increased stress and concentration impairment with higher BMI. Neurological symptoms are common and persistent in COVID-19 survivors. This meta-analysis highlights the significant burden these symptoms place on individuals, emphasizing the need for well-resourced multidisciplinary healthcare services to support post-COVID recovery. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42024576237.

We assessed university students’ knowledge, attitude, and practice toward blood donation and identified the factors that promote or hinder their willingness to donate. We employed a multicenter cross-sectional design, collecting data from August to October 2022 through self-administered questionnaires available in Arabic and English. Both online (Google Forms) and paper surveys were utilized. Data were analyzed using R Statistical Software (v4.1.3; R Core Team 2022). A total of 12,606 university students (7966 females and 4640 males) from 16 countries completed the questionnaire; of them, 28.5% had a good knowledge level regarding blood donation, and 22.7% had donated blood at least once. Students in health science colleges had significantly more awareness of blood donation (p-value < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in practice (p-value = 0.8). Barriers to donation included not being asked (37%), medical ineligibility (33%), fear of pain or infection (18%), concerns about negative health effects (18%), difficulty accessing donation centers (15%), and medical mistrust (14%). Individuals aged > 20 years had significantly higher odds of possessing a high knowledge level (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.77, p < 0.001). Private and international university enrollment was associated with increased knowledge (aOR 1.19, p-value < 0.001 and aOR 1.44, p-value = 0.003), while non-health science college students had lower odds (aOR 0.36, p < 0.001). Regarding blood donation status, participants > 20 years old were more likely to donate (aOR 2.21, p < 0.001). Conversely, being female, having congenital or chronic diseases, and possessing low knowledge levels were associated with decreased odds of blood donation (all p < 0.05). University students show insufficient knowledge about blood donation, with health science students displaying higher awareness levels. Despite their positive attitudes, blood donation rates remain low across all disciplines. It is imperative to enhance education and accessibility to foster a culture of blood donation among students.

Purpose: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) in the detection of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods: We searched Medline (via PubMed), EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant published studies. We selected studies assessing the accuracy of DECT in the detection of PE. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was drawn to get the Cochran Q-index and the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Seven studies were included in our systematic review. Of the 182 patients included, 108 patients had PEs. The pooled analysis showed an overall sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.4%-94.1%) and 94.6% (95% CI: 86.7%-98.5%), respectively. The pooled PLR was 8.186 (95% CI: 3.726-17.986), while the pooled NLR was 0.159 (95% CI: 0.093-0.270). Cochran-Q was 0.8712, and AUC was 0.935 in the sROC curve. Conclusion: Dual-energy computed tomography shows high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in the detection of acute PE. The high PLR highlights the high clinical importance of DECT as a prevalence-independent, rule-in test. Studies with a larger sample size with standardized reference tests are still needed to increase the statistical power of the study and support these findings.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19 virus) is a worldwide pandemic pathogen infecting 210 territories. It belongs to the family coronaviriadae and the order Nidovirales. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is a positive-sense single-stranded RNA enveloped virus that includes spike proteins projecting from the envelope. The spike (S) protein interacts with the human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor, which plays a role in the viral entry into the cell. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is zoonotic; the wet animal market where live animals are sold is expected to be the source of infection. It is the third zoonotic coronavirus, after SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Transmission of the virus among humans is confirmed by direct contact, droplet infection, fecal-oral, and blood transmission. The symptoms of COVID 19 include fever, dry cough, headache, and difficulty in breathing. COVID 19 complications, including the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), acute organ injury, secondary infection, and shock, are common in immunocompromised and elderly patients. Up till now, there is no established treatment for COVID-19, and supportive measures including mechanical ventilation and the use of nonspecific anti-viral therapies such as Remdesevir, Liponavir, and chloroquine, are currently applied in severe cases. Also, until now, there is no approved vaccine for COVID-19. In this review, we have provided an update on the SARS-COV2 virus, focusing on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentations, treatment options, and preventive measures associated with COVID-19 cases.