SynthesisBMC psychology2023
A meta-analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate the psychological consequences of COVID-19.
Synthesis in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Global prevalence of prolonged grief disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic under standardized diagnostic frameworks: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Psychological medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of Cognitive Function Following Non-severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection.Neuropsychology review · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral meta-analysis studies have been reported in the literature on the incidence of psychopathological conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This investigation aims to compile and analyze the findings of previously published meta-analysis research, as shown by the present meta-analysis of previous meta-analysis studies.
methodsThe PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from 1 January 2019 to 30 May 2022. The procedure was carried out according to the PRISMA flow chart and the qualities of the identified studies were analyzed using AMSTAR 2. Heterogeneities and risk of bias were assessed using the Meta-MUMS tool. The corresponding results, forest and funnel plots of the psychological consequences of COVID-19 were synthesized.
resultsEleven meta-analysis studies were included. Random-effects meta-analysis of anxiety and depression showed (ER = 0.318 p-value < 0.001, ER = 0.295 p-value < 0.001) high heterogeneities (I
conclusionThe data from the current meta-analysis showed different psychological disorders of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Clinicians should be aware of the prevalence with which COVID-19-infected patients experience emotional distress, anxiety, fatigue, and PTSD. About half of the included systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) suffered from poorer methodological quality and increased risk of bias, reducing confidence in the findings. There must be more SRs/MAs and high-quality clinical trials conducted to confirm these findings.
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.