Does COVID-19 related symptomatology indicate a transdiagnostic neuropsychiatric disorder? - Multidisciplinary implications, 2022, Goldstein Ferber

The clinical presentation that emerges from the extensive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mental health literature suggests high correlations among many conventional psychiatric diagnoses. Arguments against the use of multiple comorbidities for a single patient have been published long before the pandemic. Concurrently, diagnostic recommendations for use of transdiagnostic considerations for improved treatment have been also published in recent years.

In this review, we pose the question of whether a transdiagnostic mental health disease, including psychiatric and neuropsychiatric symptomology, has emerged since the onset of the pandemic. There are many attempts to identify a syndrome related to the pandemic, but none of the validated scales is able to capture the entire psychiatric and neuropsychiatric clinical presentation in infected and non-infected individuals. These scales also only marginally touch the issue of etiology and prevalence. We suggest a working hypothesis termed Complex Stress Reaction Syndrome (CSRS) representing a global psychiatric reaction to the pandemic situation in the general population (Type A) and a neuropsychiatric reaction in infected individuals (Type B) which relates to neurocognitive and psychiatric features which are part (excluding systemic and metabolic dysfunctions) of the syndrome termed in the literature as long COVID.

We base our propositions on multidisciplinary scientific data regarding mental health during the global pandemic situation and the effects of viral infection reviewed from Google Scholar and PubMed between February 1, 2022 and March 10, 2022. Search in-clusion criteria were “mental health”, “COVID-19” and “Long COVID”, English language and human studies only. We suggest that this more comprehensive way of understanding COVID-19 complex mental health reactions may promote better prevention and treatment and serve to guide implementation of recommended administrative regulations that were recently published by the World Psychiatric Association. This review may serve as a call for an international investigation of our working hypothesis.

Open access, https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3206/full/v12/i8/1004.htm

 

Published in a journal of the 'Baishideng Publishing Group":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baishideng_Publishing_Group

"Baishideng Publishing Group was listed on the 'original' Beall's List of potential predatory open access publishers.[5] The publisher has persisted in being listed at a successor to Beall's List, Stop Predatory Journals.[6] BPG was named in a 2019 cover story of The Walrus as a "junk publisher" alongside Scientific Research Publishing, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, and OMICS International.[7]"

So hopefully their "call for an international investigation of our working hypothesis" won't be heard by too many people publishing equally bad work in more prestigious journals.

(Apologies for being slightly repetitive.)