ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2023
Long-term cardiac symptoms following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: There is growing body of literature on the long-term cardiac symptoms following COVID-19. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and evaluate related evidence to inform clinical management and future studies. Methods: We searched two preprint and seven peer-reviewed article databases from January 1, 2020 to January 8, 2022 for studies investigating cardiac symptoms that persisted for at least 4 weeks among individuals who survived COVID-19. A customized Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the proportion of symptoms with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and stratified analyses were conducted to quantify the proportion of symptoms by study characteristics and quality. Results: A total of 101 studies describing 49 unique long-term cardiac symptoms met the inclusion criteria. Based on quality assessment, only 15.8% of the studies (n=16) were of high quality, and most studies scored poorly on sampling representativeness. The two most examined symptoms were chest pain and arrhythmia. Meta-analysis showed that the proportion of chest pain was 10.1% (95% CI: 6.4-15.5) and arrhythmia was 9.8% (95% CI: 5.4-17.2). Stratified analyses showed that studies with low-quality score, small sample size, unsystematic sampling method, and cross-sectional design were most likely to report high proportions of symptoms. For example, the proportion of chest pain was 21.3% (95% CI: 10.5-38.5), 9.3% (95% CI: 6.0-14.0), and 4.0% (95% CI: 1.3-12.0) in studies with low, medium, and high-quality scores, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for other cardiac symptoms including hypertension, cardiac abnormalities, myocardial injury, thromboembolism, stroke, heart failure, coronary disease, and myocarditis. Discussion: There is a wide spectrum of long-term cardiac symptoms following COVID-19. Findings of existing studies are strongly related to study quality, size and design, underscoring the need for high-quality epidemiologic studies to characterize these symptoms and understand their etiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.