Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35861678›Full record

Observational studyJMIR public health and surveillance2022

Developing a Long COVID Phenotype for Postacute COVID-19 in a National Primary Care Sentinel Cohort: Observational Retrospective Database Analysis.

Nikhil Mayor, Bernardo Meza-Torres, Cecilia Okusi, Gayathri Delanerolle, Martin Chapman, Wenjuan Wang, Sneha Anand, Michael Feher, Jack Macartney, Rachel Byford and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Nikhil Mayor *Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2681-2501
Bernardo Meza-Torres *Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6551-5484
Cecilia OkusiDepartment of Surgery & Cancer, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5575-8527
Gayathri DelanerolleDepartment of Surgery & Cancer, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9628-9245
Martin ChapmanPopulation Health Sciences, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0845-3632
Wenjuan WangPopulation Health Sciences, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1879-7332
Sneha AnandDepartment of Surgery & Cancer, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0538-3974
Michael FeherNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0631-6199
Jack MacartneyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0678-2659
Rachel ByfordNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4792-8995
Mark JoyNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4974-3724
Piers GatenbyRoyal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1361-9940
Vasa CurcinPopulation Health Sciences, Kings College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8308-2886
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2369-8088
Brendan DelaneyDepartment of Surgery & Cancer, Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3518-0131
Simon de LusignanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8553-2641
University of Oxford · GBImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25310
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing COVID-19, up to 40% of people have ongoing health problems, referred to as postacute COVID-19 or long COVID (LC). LC varies from a single persisting symptom to a complex multisystem disease. Research has flagged that this condition is underrecorded in primary care records, and seeks to better define its clinical characteristics and management. Phenotypes provide a standard method for case definition and identification from routine data and are usually machine-processable. An LC phenotype can underpin research into this condition.

objectiveThis study aims to develop a phenotype for LC to inform the epidemiology and future research into this condition. We compared clinical symptoms in people with LC before and after their index infection, recorded from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. We also compared people recorded as having acute infection with those with LC who were hospitalized and those who were not.

methodsWe used data from the Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC) of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database. This network was recruited to be nationally representative of the English population. We developed an LC phenotype using our established 3-step ontological method: (1) ontological step (defining the reasoning process underpinning the phenotype, (2) coding step (exploring what clinical terms are available, and (3) logical extract model (testing performance). We created a version of this phenotype using Protégé in the ontology web language for BioPortal and using PhenoFlow. Next, we used the phenotype to compare people with LC (1) with regard to their symptoms in the year prior to acquiring COVID-19 and (2) with people with acute COVID-19. We also compared hospitalized people with LC with those not hospitalized. We compared sociodemographic details, comorbidities, and Office of National Statistics-defined LC symptoms between groups. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

resultsThe long-COVID phenotype differentiated people hospitalized with LC from people who were not and where no index infection was identified. The PCSC (N=7.4 million) includes 428,479 patients with acute COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by a laboratory test and 10,772 patients with clinically diagnosed COVID-19. A total of 7471 (1.74%, 95% CI 1.70-1.78) people were coded as having LC, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.7-14.3) had a hospital admission related to acute COVID-19, and 6462 (86.5%, 95% CI 85.7-87.3) were not hospitalized, of whom 2728 (42.2%) had no COVID-19 index date recorded. In addition, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.73-14.28) people with LC were hospitalized compared to 17,993 (4.5%, 95% CI 4.48-4.61; P<.001) with uncomplicated COVID-19.

conclusionsOur LC phenotype enables the identification of individuals with the condition in routine data sets, facilitating their comparison with unaffected people through retrospective research. This phenotype and study protocol to explore its face validity contributes to a better understanding of LC.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansPhenotypePost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromePrimary Health CareRetrospective Studiesbiomedical ontologiesBioPortalcomputerizedCOVID-19data accuracydata extractsdigital tooldisease managementelectronic health recordepidemiologyethnicitygeneral practitionershospitalizationlong COVIDmedical record systemsphenotypepostacute COVID-19 syndromepublic healthSARS-CoV-2social classsurveillanceSystematized Nomenclature of Medicine

Identifiers

PMID35861678
PMCPMC9374163
OpenAlexW4286341385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.