ReviewTherapeutic advances in infectious disease
Long-COVID-19 clinical and health outcomes: an umbrella review.
Review in Therapeutic advances in infectious disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diaphragmatic strengthening exercises for patients with post COVID-19 condition after mild-to-moderate acute COVID-19 infection: a randomized controlled study.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Trial
- Real-world evidence on long COVID-19 in Greece: A multicenter, cross-sectional study (LONCOV2).IJID regions · 2025Article
- Living With Persistent Respiratory Symptoms of Long COVID: Qualitative Study Among Brazilian Adults 12 Months After Acute Infection.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
- Kidney Disease and Proteomics: A Recent Overview of a Useful Tool for Improving Early Diagnosis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes in newborns of pregnant women with COVID-19: integrative review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A growing interest in long-term sequelae of COVID-19 has prompted several systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to evaluate long-COVID-19 effects. However, many of these reviews lack in-depth information on the timing, duration, and severity of these conditions. Objectives: Our aim was to synthesize both qualitative and quantitative evidence on prevalence and outcomes of long-term effect of COVID-19 through an umbrella review. Design: Umbrella review of relevant SLRs on long-COVID-19 in terms of prolonged symptoms and clinical conditions, and comprehensively synthesized the latest existing evidence. Data Sources and Methods: We systematically identified and appraised prior systematic reviews/meta-analyses using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database of systematic review from 2020 to 2021 following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidance. We summarized and categorized all relevant clinical symptoms and outcomes in adults with COVID-19 using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class (MedDRA SOC). Results: We identified 967 systematic reviews/meta-analyses; 36 were retained for final data extraction. The most prevalent SOC were social circumstances (40%), blood and lymphatic system disorders (39%), and metabolism and nutrition disorder (38%). The most frequently reported SOC outcomes within each MedDRA category were poor quality of life (59%), wheezing and dyspnea (19-49%), fatigue (30-64%), chest pain (16%), decreased or loss of appetite (14-17%), abdominal discomfort or digestive disorder (12-18%), arthralgia with or without myalgia (16-24%), paresthesia (27%) and hair loss (14-25%), and hearing loss or tinnitus (15%). Conclusion: This study confirmed a high prevalence of several long COVID-19 outcomes according to the MedDRA categories and indicated that the majority of evidence was rated as moderate to low. Registration: The review was registered at PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) (CRD42022303557).
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.