Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35714658›Full record

ReviewThe Lancet. Respiratory medicine2022

A core outcome set for post-COVID-19 condition in adults for use in clinical practice and research: an international Delphi consensus study.

Daniel Munblit, Timothy Nicholson, Athena Akrami, Christian Apfelbacher, Jessica Chen, Wouter De Groote, Janet V Diaz, Sarah L Gorst, Nicola Harman, Alisa Kokorina and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet. Respiratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
27.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

133 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 225 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Guideline
  11. Rehabilitation and COVID-19: systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. A systematic review of trials currently investigating therapeutic modalities for post-acute COVID-19 syndrome and registered on WHO International Clinical Trials Platform.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023
    Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Daniel MunblitDepartment of Paediatrics and Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Institute of Child's Health, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia; Inflammation, Repair and Development Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Research and Clinical Center for Neuropsychiatry, Moscow, Russia. Electronic address: daniel.munblit08@imperial.ac.uk.
Timothy NicholsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Athena AkramiSainsbury Wellcome Centre, UCL, London, UK; Patient-Led Research Collaborative, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Christian ApfelbacherInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Faculty of Medicine, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Jessica ChenFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Wouter De GrooteDepartment of Noncommunicable Diseases, Rehabilitation Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Janet V DiazClinical Management Team, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Sarah L GorstDepartment of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Nicola HarmanMRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Alisa KokorinaPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Piero OlliaroISARIC Global Support Centre, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Callum ParrFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Jacobus PrellerHealth Care Readiness Unit, Health Emergencies Unit, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Nicoline SchiessBrain Health Unit, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jochen SchmittCenter for Evidence-based Healthcare, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Nina SeylanovaMoscow, Russia.
Frances SimpsonCoventry University, Coventry, UK.
Allison TongSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Dale M NeedhamOutcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery Research Group, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Paula R WilliamsonMRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership, Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
PC-COS project steering committee
University of Liverpool · GBWorld Health Organization · CHImperial College London · GBOtto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg · DECoventry University · GBJohns Hopkins Medicine · USKing's College London · GBPirogov Russian National Research Medical University · RUTU Dresden · DEUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19026Medical Research Council MC_PC_20050World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health consequences that persist beyond the acute infection phase of COVID-19, termed post-COVID-19 condition (also commonly known as long COVID), vary widely and represent a growing global health challenge. Research on post-COVID-19 condition is expanding but, at present, no agreement exists on the health outcomes that should be measured in people living with the condition. To address this gap, we conducted an international consensus study, which included a comprehensive literature review and classification of outcomes for post-COVID-19 condition that informed a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by an online consensus meeting to finalise the core outcome set (COS). 1535 participants from 71 countries were involved, with 1148 individuals participating in both Delphi rounds. Eleven outcomes achieved consensus for inclusion in the final COS: fatigue; pain; post-exertion symptoms; work or occupational and study changes; survival; and functioning, symptoms, and conditions for each of cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes. Recovery was included a priori because it was a relevant outcome that was part of a previously published COS on COVID-19. The next step in this COS development exercise will be to establish the instruments that are most appropriate to measure these core outcomes. This international consensus-based COS should provide a framework for standardised assessment of adults with post-COVID-19 condition, aimed at facilitating clinical care and research worldwide.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultDelphi TechniqueHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35714658
PMCPMC9197249
OpenAlexW4282930007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.