Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings provide a valuable, noninvasive method for measuring human brain activity. This protocol modi es our general protocol for EEG recording (Farrens et al., 2019) for use during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was created with the help of numerous experts, and it speci es a clear set of steps for interacting with research participants, using personal protective equipment (PPE), and disinfecting equipment, all with the goal of reducing the COVID-19 risks for both laboratory personnel and participants. It focuses on the use of EEG in relatively simple research studies of adults who can easily understand and follow instructions, yet can be readily adapted for studies using other types of EEG experiments or other participant populations.

Objective The purpose of this article was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of chest CT for detecting coronavirus disease 2019 . Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI were searched up to March 12, 2020. We included studies providing information regarding diagnostic test accuracy of chest CT for COVID-19 detection. The methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled. Results Sixteen studies (n = 3186 patients) were included. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate in general. Pooled sensitivity was 92% (95% CI = 86-96%), and two studies reported specificity (25% [95% CI = 22-30%] and 33% [95% CI = 23-44%], respectively). There was substantial heterogeneity according to Cochran's Q test (p < 0.01) and Higgins I 2 heterogeneity index (96% for sensitivity). After dividing the studies into two groups based on the study site, we found that the sensitivity of chest CT was great in Wuhan (the most affected city by the epidemic) and the sensitivity values were very close to each other (97%, 96%, and 99%, respectively). In the regions other than Wuhan, the sensitivity varied from 61 to 98%. Conclusion Chest CT offers the great sensitivity for detecting COVID-19, especially in a region with severe epidemic situation. However, the specificity is low. In the context of emergency disease control, chest CT provides a fast, convenient, and effective method to early recognize suspicious cases and might contribute to confine epidemic. Key Points• Chest CT has a high sensitivity for detecting COVID-19, especially in a region with severe epidemic, which is helpful to early recognize suspicious cases and might contribute to confine epidemic.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to perform a systematic review and meta- analysis regarding the diagnostic test accuracy of chest CT for detecting Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CNKI were searched up to March 12, 2020. We included studies providing information regarding diagnostic test accuracy of chest CT for COVID-19 detection. The methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled.RESULTS: Ten studies (n = 2657 patients) were included. The risks of bias in all studies were moderate in general. Pooled sensitivity was 93% (95% CI: 85 - 97%), and only one study reported specificity (25%, 95% CI:22-30%). There was substantial heterogeneity according to the Cochran Q test (p < 0.01) and Higgins I2 heterogeneity index (96% for sensitivity). After dividing the studies into two groups based on the study site, we found that the sensitivity of chest CT was great in Wuhan (the most affected city by the epidemic) and the sensitivity values were very close to each other (97%, 96% and 99%, respectively). In the regions other than Wuhan, the sensitivity varied from 69% to 98%.CONCLUSION: Chest CT offers the great sensitivity for detecting COVID-19, especially in region with severe epidemic situation. However, the specificity is low. In the context of emergency disease control, chest CT provide a fast, convenient and effective method to early recognize suspicious cases and might contribute to confine epidemic.

Introduction A left common pulmonary vein (LCPV) is a common anatomical variant in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Whether an LCPV influences outcomes of repeated radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for AF has not been elucidated. Methods From a prospectively collected database, we enrolled 154 patients who received repeated RFCA for recurrent AF after the initial RFCA (56 ± 9 years, 72% paroxysmal AF, 32 patients with an LCPV, and 122 patients with typical left‐sided pulmonary veins [PVs]). Median postprocedural follow‐up was 26 months. The primary outcome was an episode of AF, atrial tachyarrhythmia, or atrial flutter lasting for more than 30 seconds, after the 3 months blanking period following the repeated procedure. Results After the follow‐up period, 75 patients suffered recurrence after repeated ablation. In the Kaplan‐Meier analysis, an LCPV was significantly associated with less recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28‐0.79; P = 0.005). In subgroup analysis, the significant association persisted in paroxysmal AF patients. Regarding persistent AF patients, an LCPV tended to be associated with less recurrence with no statistical significance (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.20‐1.03; P = 0.067). In multivariate analyses, an LCPV still independently predicted freedom from recurrence (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22‐0.88; P = 0.02). Conclusion Compared with typical left‐sided PVs, an LCPV was independently associated with better outcomes after repeated RFCA of AF, particularly in patients with paroxysmal AF.