Evidence Hub

Case Report: Reversible neurological involvement associated with Chlamydia psittaci infection: clinical, cerebrospinal fluid and neuroimaging features of three fully documented cases

Zhang H, Zhou J, Chen Y, Wang X, Luo X, Yang G, Gui Z, Wang S et al.

Frontiers in medicine, 2026

Abstract

Background: Chlamydia psittaci infection presents mainly as severe pneumonia, but a subset of patients develop neurological symptoms. Previous reports are largely single cases and frequently lack cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) data, opening pressure and follow-up imaging, which makes the mechanism of neurological involvement difficult to determine.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed three patients with C. psittaci infection confirmed by metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS), all of whom developed neurological manifestations and had complete clinical, CSF, neuroimaging and follow-up data. Exposure history, neurological phenotype, laboratory and CSF parameters, opening pressure, treatment and outcome were collected. Potential explanations for neurological involvement were interpreted in the context of the clinical findings and published literature.

Results: All three patients (two men and one woman; aged 50-72 years) reported pigeon or poultry exposure. Two presented with encephalopathy/delirium and one with headache. Opening pressures were 160, 230 and 90 mmH₂O; none exceeded 250 mmH₂O. CSF white-cell counts were 0-2/mm³, with mild protein elevation in one patient, and the CSF pathogen tests performed were negative. This mismatch between neurological manifestations and routine CSF findings met the study's operational description of CSF-clinical dissociation. Two patients had reversible splenial lesions consistent with cytotoxic lesions of the corpus callosum (CLOCCs).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free