Persistent cognitive slowing in post-COVID patients: longitudinal study over 6 months

Table 3 Comparison of PCS patients’ neurocognitive performance at baseline and at 6-month follow-up

Cognitive measures	Baseline	6-month follow-up	Comparison
TAP—T-scores (M = 50, SD = 10)	Mdn (IQR) Percentage below > 1.5 SD from the norm’s mean	Mdn (IQR) Percentage below > 1.5 SD from the norm’s mean	p	r
RT tonic alertness	34.00 (8.00) 53.41%	33.00 (11.00) 54.55%	0.250
RT phasic alertness	33.00 (12.00) 59.09%	33.00 (11.00) 63.63%	0.230
RT divided attention (auditory)	35.00 (13.00) 48.86%	35.00 (18.00) 46.59%	0.277
RT divided attention (visual)	44.00 (15.00) 18.18%	48.00 (20.00) 17.05%	0.231
RT inhibition	41.50 (17.00) 27.27%	39.00 (16.00) 23.86%	0.808
Errors divided attention	49.00 (15.00) 1.14%	55.00 (15.00) 6.82%	0.277
Errors inhibition	53.00 (7.00) 0.00%	53.00 (1.00) 1.14%	0.277
S-NAB—standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15)	M (SD) Percentage below > 1.5 SD from the norm’s mean	M (SD) Percentage below > 1.5 SD from the norm’s mean	p	d
Attention	82.52 (14.41) 36.6%	80.12 (18.78) 45.46%	0.277
Language	101.65 (17.34) 6.82%	102.34 (10.88) 2.27%	0.798
Memory	104.09 (14.34) 2.27%	104.91 (16.77) 6.82%	0.708
Perception	94.72 (13.77) 9.09%	102.32 (12.46) 3.41%	< 0.001	0.47
Executive functions	87.61 (15.50) 28.41%	91.66 (16.20) 14.77%	0.013	0.34

Mdn and IQR are reported for Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, M and SD for t tests. FDR-adjusted p values. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d for t tests, r for Wilcoxon rank-sum tests) were only reported for significant tests with d ≥ 0.2 < 0.5 indicating small large effects
TAP Test battery for attentional performance, S-NAB Neuropsychological assessment battery screening module