Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37714919›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2023

Risk of long COVID main symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zoe Marjenberg, Sean Leng, Carlo Tascini, Megha Garg, Kate Misso, Clotilde El Guerche Seblain, Nabila Shaikh

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.0field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Zoe MarjenbergMaverex Ltd, Suite A, 168 Brinkburn Street, The Old Public Library, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 2AR, UK. zoemarjenberg@maverex.com.
Sean LengDivision of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Center on Aging and Immune Remodelling, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Carlo TasciniInfectious Diseases Clinic, Department of Medicine (DAME), Udine University, Udine, Italy.
Megha GargMaverex Ltd, Suite A, 168 Brinkburn Street, The Old Public Library, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 2AR, UK.
Kate MissoMaverex Ltd, Suite A, 168 Brinkburn Street, The Old Public Library, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 2AR, UK.
Clotilde El Guerche SeblainSanofi, Lyon, France.
Nabila ShaikhSanofi, Reading, UK.
National Energy Action · GBJohns Hopkins University · USSanofi (France) · FRSanofi (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review aimed to summarise the relative risk (RR) of the main symptoms of long COVID in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to uninfected controls, as well as the difference in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after infection. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, NLM-LitCovid, WHO-COVID-19, arXiv and Europe-PMC were searched up to 23rd March 2022. Studies reporting risk (four or more weeks after infection) of fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, as well as comparative HRQoL outcomes, were included. Pairwise random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool risks of individual symptoms. Thirty-three studies were identified; twenty studies reporting symptom risks were included in the meta-analyses. Overall, infection with SARS-CoV-2 carried significantly higher risk of fatigue (RR 1.72, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 1.41, 2.10), shortness of breath (RR 2.60, 95% CIs 1.96, 3.44), memory difficulties (RR 2.53, 95% CIs 1.30, 4.93), and concentration difficulties (RR 2.14, 95% CIs 1.25, 3.67). Quality of life findings were varied and comparisons between studies were challenging due to different HRQoL instruments used and study heterogeneity, although studies indicated that severe hospitalised COVID is associated with a significantly poorer HRQoL after infection. These risks are likely to constantly change as vaccines, reinfections, and new variants alter global immunity.

Indexed as

COVID-19Post-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeDyspneaFatigueHumansQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID37714919
PMCPMC10504382
OpenAlexW4386768090

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.