SPECIAL REPORT
Cognitive Screening After
COVID-19
Tools are needed for the assessment of neurologic and neuropsychologic
sequelae of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
By Sarah H. Gulick, PsyD; Steven Mandel, MD; Edward A. Maitz, PhD, ABN; and
Christopher R. Brigham, MD, MMS
There is an emerging body of
literature indicating that a sub‑
set of people who experienced
SARS‑CoV‑2 infection have
neurocognitive symptoms for
weeks or even months afterwards.
Approximately a third of people
with COVID‑19 report neurologic
symptoms.1 Although cognitive
symptoms can occur secondary
to systemic disease, and a small
number of individuals have had
meningoencephalitis and vascular events (eg, stroke) during
COVID‑19, some do not present with any known objective
evidence of neurologic insult. Many who have cognitive com‑
plaints have normal neurologic and physical examinations,
lab results, and neuroimaging. This review addresses reported
symptoms weeks or months after infection, how and when
neurologists and other physicians might be able to assess
these, and whether cognitive screening will inform ability to
return to work and treatment recommendations. For individ‑
uals who are experiencing persistent symptoms after infection,
we must define current best practices, recognizing that our
understanding is evolving. A timeline for when maximal medi‑
cal improvement can be expected remains to be determined.
Although this research is being done, it is occurring primarily
in tertiary medical centers and teaching hospitals, and much
of the information has not yet entered clinical practice. We
anticipate that physicians will have patients who present with
brain fog, a not uncommon symptom in this population.
This article aims to provide a preliminary approach to
screening cognitive symptoms after COVID‑19. Physicians
may choose cognitive screening as an efficient way to evaluate
those reporting cognitive issues, and these may inform both
treatment recommendations and decisions of whether to refer
a patient for more comprehensive neuropsychologic testing.
There are several important limitations of cognitive screening
tests in this context that are discussed at the end of the article.
Cognitive Symptoms Reported After COVID-19
Many people report cognitive symptoms in the weeks
and months following diagnosis of COVID‑19 (Table).1-11 As
many as 75% of people who were hospitalized with COVID‑19
report persistent symptoms even 6 months later.2 The terms
post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC), COVID syndrome,
long COVID, and long haulers have all been used to describe
people who report persistent cognitive, psychologic, and
somatic symptoms after COVID‑19.5 Brain fog is used to
describe a sense that thinking is slowed, concentration is fuzzy,
and mental abilities are not as sharp as they once were. There
may be other lingering symptoms, including fatigue, body
aches, inability to exercise, headache, and difficulty sleeping.
The underlying pathophysiology of long COVID is unclear.
Symptoms may be similar to myalgic encephalomyelitis or
chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and autonomic dysfunc‑
tion. Symptoms may be attributed to mitochondrial dysfunc‑
tion and metabolic changes; however, the pathophysiology
is often unknown.12,13 Chronic symptoms are also suggestive
of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).14 A
hypothesis regarding etiology of cognitive decline is that the
virus may enter the brain via nasal passages and the olfactory
bulb to directly invade the hippocampus.15 Some preliminary
research suggests risk factors for developing long COVID, and
early research suggests that increased age, specific symptoms
in the first week of infection, higher body mass index (BMI),
and female sex carry a higher risk of persistent symptoms.16
A recent article explored self reports of cognitive symptoms,
including persistent memory loss (34%) and concentration
deficits (28%), 110 days after people were discharged from a
hospital ward vs an intensive care unit (ICU), and no significant
differences were found regarding reported cognitive symptoms
between the 2 groups.4 Another study reported poor concen‑
tration and attention, poor memory, executive functioning
deficits, and brain fog at least 28 days after COVID-19.3
Preliminary research with neuropsychologic assessment
shows that people with COVID‑19 exhibit deficits in several
cognitive domains. In a series of 2 cases, individuals recovering
MAY 2021 PRACTICAL NEUROLOGY 19
 SPECIAL REPORT
TABLE. SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE COGNITIVE
IMPAIRMENT AFTER COVID-19
Domain Population Studied
Subjective Concentration >28 days after symptom onset3
cognitive and attention and ≤110 days after hospital
impairment discharge3
Memory >28 days after symptom onset3
and ≤10 days after hospital
discharge4,5
Executive >28 days after symptom onset3
functioning
Slowed >28 days after symptom onset3
thinking or and ≤3 months after hospital
brain fog discharge6,7
Objective Concentration 2 people after acute phase8
cognitive and attention and severe COVID-19; inpatient
impairment post-critical acute stage9
Memory 2 people after acute phase8
and severe COVID-19; inpatient
post-critical acute stage9
Executive 37 and 149 days after COVID‑19;10
functioning mixed participant group,11
severe COVID-19, inpatient
postcritical acute stage9
Visual mixed participant group11
attention
Visuospatial severe COVID-19, inpatient
functioning post-critical acute stage9
from COVID‑19 (ages 33 and 56), who were not hospitalized,
had screening and neuropsychologic testing 37 and 149 days
after symptom onset. Cognitive screening with the Montreal
Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State
Examination (MMSE) was unremarkable, but more comprehen‑
sive tests revealed deficits in executive functioning and work‑
ing memory.9 Neuropsychologic tests were administered to
matched groups, age 30 to 64, who had recovered from vs not
had COVID-19. Tests included the Trail Making Test (TMT),
Sign Coding Test (SCT), Continuous Performance Test (CPT),
and Digital Span Test (DST). No differences were seen on the
TMT, SCT, or DST, but individuals who had recovered from
COVID‑19 scored lower on several aspects of the CPT, indicat‑
ing sustained attention deficits.8
Although cognition is an important factor for assessing
overall functioning and employment potential, other factors,
such as medical and psychologic history, may also affect func‑
tioning. Fatigue, medication effects, possible dissimulation,
and current psychologic functioning need to be considered. A
detailed discussion of these factors is outside the scope of this
20 PRACTICAL NEUROLOGY MAY 2021
article, and future research is needed to continue examining
differences between those who had COVID‑19 and were or
were not hospitalized, as well as between people with mild vs
severe symptoms during COVID‑19.
Cognitive Screening Tests
Assessing cognitive complaints objectively during the short
time of a typical office visit can be challenging, but screening
tests can be done by a primary care physician or neurologist
to determine whether more comprehensive cognitive testing
is indicated. Several cognitive screening tests have been devel‑
oped and used in a variety of populations. It is important to
note, however, that literature directly comparing the 3 cogni‑
tive screening tests discussed in this article with each other is
somewhat limited. There is also no literature yet regarding use
of cognitive screening tests in a COVID‑19 population.
Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) Examination
The SLUMS exam was created to detect mild cognitive
impairment (MCI) in veterans,17 age 18  years and up; however,
research regarding use in younger adults is limited. The SLUMS
exam takes approximately 7 minutes to administer and is avail‑
able in multiple languages. It is free to the public, with a brief
training video available on the developers’ webpage.
MoCA
MoCA was developed as a rapid screening measure to detect
mild cognitive dysfunction18 and has been validated for use
in individuals ages 55 to 85. MoCA has been used as a screen‑
ing tool in multiple populations, including people with a large
range of neuropsychiatric conditions from Alzheimer disease
(AD) to HIV-related dementia. Multiple versions are available
to allow for serial testing in approximately 100 languages. The
MoCA takes about 10 minutes to administer and is available
digitally. The MoCA is available to the public, although the
publishers require completion of brief (1 hour) training and
certification, which costs $125, before administering the MoCA.
MMSE
The MMSE was developed to screen for cognitive impair‑
ment19 and is validated for use in ages 18 to 85 years. The
MMSE takes approximately 10 minutes to administer and is
available in about 70 languages. Before 2001, the MMSE was
free, but in 2001, the test was licensed to a commercial com‑
pany, PAR, through which MMSE must now be purchased.
Evidence for Use of Cognitive Screening Tests
Evidence for the MoCA
In a minireview of studies that used the MoCA to assess
people with traumatic brain injury (TBI),20 it was found to reli‑
ably detect cognitive impairment in people with mild TBI com‑
pared with normal controls. The MoCA is also said to differen‑

tiate cognitive disturbances between mild and severe TBI. Still,
more research is needed to determine if the the MoCA can
differentiate functional cognitive differences in mild vs moder‑
ate TBI. Use of the MMSE has been compared with use of the
MoCA in TBI for prediction of outcome at discharge from an
acute care setting, and both were found to have similar predic‑
tive abilities compared with the Disability Rating Scale.21 In a
study of 130 individuals over age 55 without severe cognitive
impairment who were administered 2 cognitive assessments
between 2 and 4 months apart, the MoCA was more reliable
than the MMSE, but all measures, including the MoCA, MMSE,
and Color Trails Test (CTT) showed within-person variability.22
Subtests of the MMSE and the MoCA have been compared,
and the MoCA has more sensitivity for detecting executive
dysfunction. In a study comparing Chinese-language versions
of the MMSE and the MoCA in 1,222 individuals who had
experienced a stroke, MoCA trail-making and abstraction sub‑
tests were more sensitive to executive dysfunction than the
MMSE 3-step command test. The MoCA digit span forwards
and backwards test, however, was less sensitive to executive
dysfunction than the MMSE 3-step command subtest.23
Evidence for the MMSE
In a meta-analysis of cognitive screening to assess MCI,
Addenbrooke Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R),
Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease
(CERAD), MoCA, and the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment
(Qmci) screen were found to have similar diagnostic accuracy,
whereas the MMSE had lower sensitivity.24 The MMSE has
high sensitivity for dementia and is the most frequently stud‑
ied instrument used in assessing the US Hispanic population
according a meta-analysis, but ethnicity and education were
significant confounders.25 This was also found for people over
age 60.26 In 93 individuals hospitalized for heart failure who had
reported neurocognitive problems, scores on the MoCA and
MMSE were compared. The MoCA classified 41% as cognitively
impaired who were not detected with the MMSE.27 In a study
comparing the MoCA and the MMSE 1 week and 3 months
after stroke in a group of 60 people (mean age 72), the MoCA
scores were lower and the MMSE skewed more towards test
ceiling (the point at which items become too difficult to
answer). In this study, the MoCA was more sensitive than the
MMSE, but the MoCA had poorer specificity. The MMSE was
also found to be valid in this population.28
Evidence for the SLUMS
In a study comparing the SLUMS and the MMSE in 304 par‑
ticipants age 70 and older, the MMSE and the SLUMS correlat‑
ed with each other and with 2 functional measures; however,
the MMSE and the SLUMS categorized the same individual
differently. The 1-year change in MMSE raw scores correlated
with changes in 3 functional domains and age. In contrast, the
SPECIAL REPORT
SLUMS raw score change over a year did not correlate with
any functional measures.29 In a population of veterans (mean
age 75) the SLUMS and the MMSE had similar sensitivity and
specificity in detecting dementia.17 In a nonveteran group of
170 individuals age 60 or more who were administered the
MMSE and the SLUMs as well as the more comprehensive
neuropsychologic TMT, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test,
and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, the SLUMS correlated
more strongly with the TMT than the MMSE.30 The SLUMS
outperformed MMSE in predicting cognitive performance
across all measures and demographic variables, with the excep‑
tion of perseverative errors on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.
Significant differences between the MMSE and the SLUMS
were also been observed in people who resided in assisted- vs
independent-living environments (n=118, age 41 to 96).31
A study of 136 veterans (median age 78) administered the
SLUMS, the Short Test of Mental Status (STMS), and the
MoCA in random order and the Clinical Dementia Rating
(CDR) scale at a separate session showed all 3 screening tests
correlated with the CDR. All had adequate specificity, sensitiv‑
ity, and positive and negative predictive value. The authors also
point out that compared with the MMSE, the SLUMS has bet‑
ter sensitivity and specificity for detecting both dementia and
MCI when compared with DSM-IV criteria.32
Working Model and Decision Tree
As described in a New York Times article, “. . .a veteran nurse
practitioner at an urgent care clinic who fell ill with the virus
in July, finds herself forgetting routine treatments and lab tests,
and has to ask colleagues about terminology she used to know
automatically.”33 If a patient presents to a physician’s office
with these cognitive symptoms, the physician could consider
administering a cognitive screening measure (eg, MoCA,
MMSE, or SLUMS) in order to obtain more information and
facilitate decision making (Figure). Additionally, the physician
may ask the patient how long they have been experiencing
cognitive symptoms, and they may be interested in knowing if
others have also noticed cognitive changes (Box). Ultimately,
it is up to the physician to decide which cognitive screening
tool to utilize in clinical practice. If no cognitive impairment
is apparent on the cognitive screening test, no action may be
necessary at that time. If symptoms re-emerge at a later date,
the physician may choose to readminister a cognitive screen.
We propose that if there is evidence of impairment during
screening, the physician may choose to monitor the patient
and reevaluate in 3 months. If impairment is still apparent on
a cognitive screen at reassessment, and the patient continues
to report cognitive symptoms, a referral for comprehensive
neuropsychologic assessment may be necessary. A neuropsy‑
chologist can assess the validity and nature of the cognitive
symptoms, along with severity of impairment and whether
psychologic factors may be contributing to the presentation.
MAY 2021 PRACTICAL NEUROLOGY 21
 SPECIAL REPORT
Figure. A Working Clinical Model for Cognitive Screening After
COVID-19. Goals of this working model are to provide individuals
with reasonable necessary diagnosis and efficacious treatment to
the degree possible and help them return to the highest possible
level of functioning.
Additionally, a neuropsychologist can provide treatment rec‑
ommendations and facilitate return to work.
Limitations
Cognitive screening tools to assess individuals for cognitive
symptoms after COVID‑19 have limitations; there are none to
date designed specifically for use in a COVID‑19 population.
Thus, cognitive screening tests developed for other patient
populations must be implemented. Cognitive screening tools
do not assess symptom validity or psychologic factors, for
which comprehensive neuropsychologic evaluation is needed.
Cognitive screening tests do not replace a comprehensive
neuropsychologic assessment; however, a cognitive screening
BOX. Clinical Questions to Consider
1. How long have you been experiencing cognitive symptoms?
2. Have others noticed or commented on cognitive changes?
3. What setting do you experience cognitive changes in?
22 PRACTICAL NEUROLOGY MAY 2021
tool will facilitate physician decision-making and guide refer‑
rals to obtain appropriate assessment and treatment.
The cognitive screening tools discussed in this review are
proposed as screening tests for cognitive impairment, not psy‑
chologic distress. It is important to recognize that psychologic
and cognitive symptoms may occur simultaneously. It can be
challenging to determine the etiology of symptoms and if a
person is experiencing true cognitive impairment or impair‑
ment secondary to psychologic distress. A neuropsychologist
can assist in making this differential diagnosis. A cognitive
screening tool does not define a patient’s impairment, func‑
tion, or disability. This determination requires a more com‑
prehensive evaluation. The determination of disability often
requires a thorough understanding of the patient’s medical,
psychosocial, educational, and vocational history; an updated
medical evaluation; objective measures of symptom validity; a
comprehensive objective assessment of the individual’s cogni‑
tive and psychologic functioning; and an understanding of the
requirements and demands of their job.
Summary
To summarize, the following cognitive symptoms following
COVID‑19 have been reported: memory loss,3-5 attention and
concentration decline,3,4 executive functioning decline,3 and
slowed thinking/brain fog.3,6,7 The objective studies discussed
show cognitive decline in memory,10 attention and concen‑
tration,8,10 executive functioning,9-11 visuospatial function‑
ing,10 and visual attention.11 It is expected that physicians will
encounter patients who are reporting some of these persis‑
tent cognitive symptoms weeks or months after COVID‑19
diagnosis, including some individuals who never had a positive
SARS‑CoV‑2 test. Physicians may choose to utilize cognitive
screening tools in their practice as a quick and practical way
to identify symptoms and guide decision making.  n
1. Pilotto A, Masciocchi S, Volonghi I, et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 2-related encephalitis: the ENCOVID multicenter study. J Infect Dis. 2021;223(1):28-37.
2. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort
study. Lancet. 2021;397(10270):220-232.
3. Davis HE, Assaf GS, McCorkell L, et al. Characterizing long COVID in an international cohort: 7 months of symptoms and their
impact [preprint]. SSRN. 2020;10.2139/ssrn.3820561. doi:10.1101/2020.12.24.20248802
4. Garrigues E, Janvier P, Kherabi Y, et al. Post-discharge persistent symptoms and health-related quality of life after
hospitalization for COVID-19. J Infect. 2020;81(6):e4-e6. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.08.029
5. Lambert N, Survivor Corps, El-Azab SA, et al. COVID-19 survivors’ reports of the timing, duration, and health impacts of post-
acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) infection [preprint]. medRxiv. 2021;03.22.21254026. doi:10.1101/2021.03.22.21254026
6. Rubin R. As their numbers grow, COVID-19 “long haulers” stump experts. JAMA. 2020;324(14):1381-1383.
7. Savarraj JPJ, Burkett AB, Hinds SN, et al. Three-month outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients [preprint]. medRxiv.
2020;10.16.20211029; doi:10.1101/2020.10.16.20211029
8. Zhou H, Lu S, Chen J, et al. The landscape of cognitive function in recovered COVID-19 patients. J Psychiatr Res. 2020;129:98-102.
9. Hellmuth J, Barnett TA, Asken BM, et al. Persistent COVID-19-associated neurocognitive symptoms in non-hospitalized
patients. J Neurovirol. 2021;27(1):191-195.
10. Beaud V, Crottaz-Herbette S, Dunet V, et al. Pattern of cognitive deficits in severe COVID-19. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry.
2021;92(5):567-568.
11. Chamberlain SR, Grant JE, Trender W, Hellyer P, Hampshire A. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in COVID-19 survivors:
online population survey. BJPsych Open. 2021;7(2):e47. doi:10.1192/bjo.2021.3
12. Wood E, Hall KH, Tate W. Role of mitochondria, oxidative stress and the response to antioxidants in myalgic encephalomyelitis/
chronic fatigue syndrome: a possible approach to SARS-CoV-2 ‘long-haulers’?. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2021;7(1):14-26.
13. Tancheva L, Petralia MC, Miteva S, et al. Emerging neurological and psychobiological aspects of COVID-19 infection. Brain
Sci. 2020;10(11):852.
14. Johansson M, Ståhlberg M, Runold M, et al. Long-haul post–COVID-19 symptoms presenting as a variant of postural orthostatic
tachycardia syndrome: the Swedish experience [published online ahead of print, 2021 Mar 10]. JACC Case Rep. 2021;3(4):573-580.
15. Ritchie K, Chan D, Watermeyer T. The cognitive consequences of the COVID-19 epidemic: collateral damage? Brain Com-
 SPECIAL REPORT

munications. 2020;2(2):fcaa069. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcaa069.

16. Sudre CH, Murray B, Varsavsky T, et al. Attributes and predictors of long-COVID: analysis of COVID cases and their
symptoms collected by the Covid Symptoms Study App. Nat Med. 2021;27(4):626-631.[ Sarah H. Gulick, PsyD
17. Tariq SH, Tumosa N, Chibnall JT, Perry MH 3rd, Morley JE. Comparison of the Saint Louis University mental status examina- Neuropsychology Post-Doctoral Fellow
tion and the mini-mental state examination for detecting dementia and mild neurocognitive disorder--a pilot study. Am J
Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14(11):900-910. Clinical Neuropsychology Associates
18. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive
impairment [published correction appears in J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(9):1991]. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-699.
Philadelphia, PA
19. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the
clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198.
20. Mishra K, Purohit D, Sharma S. Montreal Cognitive Assessment Score: a screening tool for cognitive function in traumatic brain Steven Mandel, MD
injury (TBI) population. J Neurol Neuromedicine. 2020;5:35-39. Clinical Professor of Neurology
21. de Guise E, Leblanc J, Champoux MC, et al. The mini-mental state examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment after
traumatic brain injury: an early predictive study. Brain Inj. 2013;27(12):1428-1434. Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell
22. Feeney J, Savva GM, O’Regan C, King-Kallimanis B, Cronin H, Kenny RA. Measurement error, reliability, and minimum detect-
able change in the Mini-Mental State Examination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Color Trails Test among community
Adjunct Professor of Medicine, New York Medical College
living middle-aged and older adults. J Alzheimers Dis. 2016;53(3):1107-1114. New York, NY
23. Fu C, Jin X, Chen B, et al. Comparison of the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment executive
subtests in detecting post-stroke cognitive impairment. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2017;17(12):2329-2335.
24. Breton A, Casey D, Arnaoutoglou NA. Cognitive tests for the detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the prodromal Edward A. Maitz, PhD, ABN
stage of dementia: Mmeta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34(2):233-242.
25. Arévalo SP, Kress J, Rodriguez FS. Validity of cognitive assessment tools for older adult Hispanics: a systematic review. J Am Clinical Neuropsychologist
Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(4):882-888.
26. Ciesielska N, Sokołowski R, Mazur E, Podhorecka M, Polak-Szabela A, Kędziora-Kornatowska K. Is the Montreal Cognitive
Clinical Neuropsychology Associates
Assessment (MoCA) test better suited than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in mild cognitive impairment Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor, Widener University
(MCI) detection among people aged over 60? Psychiatr Pol. 2016;50(5):1039-1052.
27. Cameron J, Worrall-Carter L, Page K, Stewart S, Ski CF. Screening for mild cognitive impairment in patients with heart Philadelphia, PA
failure: Montreal cognitive assessment versus mini mental state exam. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2013;12(3):252-260.
28. Cumming TB, Churilov L, Linden T, Bernhardt J. Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination are
both valid cognitive tools in stroke. Acta Neurol Scand. 2013;128(2):122-129. Christopher R. Brigham, MD, MMS
29. Howland M, Tatsuoka C, Smyth KA, Sajatovic M. Detecting change over time: a comparison of the SLUMS examination and
the MMSE in older adults at risk for cognitive decline. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2016;22(5):413-419.
Department of Medicine
30. Feliciano L, Horning SM, Klebe KJ, Anderson SL, Cornwell RE, Davis HP. Utility of the SLUMS as a cognitive screening tool among Affiliate Faculty, Leadership in Preventive Medicine
a nonveteran sample of older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;21(7):623-630. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2013.01.024.
31. Buckingham DN, Mackor KM, Miller RM, et al. Comparing the cognitive screening tools: MMSE and SLUMS. Pure Insights. Residency/Fellowship Program, Maine Medical Center
2013;2(1):3. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/pure/vol2/iss1/3 Portland, ME
32. Cummings-Vaughn LA, Chavakula NN, Malmstrom TK, Tumosa N, Morley JE, Cruz-Oliver DM. Veterans Affairs Saint Louis
University Mental Status examination compared with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Short Test of Mental
Status. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(7):1341-1346.
33. Belluck P. “I feel like I have dementia”: brain fog plagues covid survivors. The New York Times. Published October 11, 2020.
Disclosures
Updated January 8, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/11/health/covid-survivors.html SHG, SM, EAM, and CRB report no disclosures

MAY 2021 PRACTICAL NEUROLOGY 23