Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38233057›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2024

Definition and measurement of post-COVID-19 conditions in real-world practice: a global systematic literature review.

Jingyan Yang, Kristen Markus, Kathleen Michelle Andersen, Abby E Rudolph, Leah J McGrath, Jennifer L Nguyen, Moe H Kyaw, Isabelle Whittle, Vasileios Blazos, Louise Heron and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

11 authors.

Jingyan YangPfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA jingyan.yang@pfizer.com.ORCID 0000-0001-5523-649X
Kristen MarkusAdelphi Values PROVE, Bollington, UK.
Kathleen Michelle AndersenPfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2670-800X
Abby E RudolphPfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Leah J McGrathPfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Jennifer L NguyenPfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA.
Moe H KyawPfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-9111-7666
Isabelle WhittleAdelphi Values PROVE, Bollington, UK.
Vasileios BlazosAdelphi Values PROVE, Bollington, UK.
Louise HeronAdelphi Values PROVE, Bollington, UK.
Julia Regazzini SpinardiEmerging Markets, Pfizer Brasil, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-COVID-19 conditions (PCC) is an umbrella term that encompasses a range of signs, symptoms and conditions present weeks after the acute phase of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. This systematic literature review summarises the heterogeneous methodology used to measure PCC across real-world studies and highlights trends by region, age group, PCC follow-up period and data source.

methodsMedline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched and supplemented with conference and grey literature searches. Eligible studies included individuals with (1) PCC or (2) a positive SARS-CoV-2 test or COVID-19 diagnosis who were followed over time. Included studies were published in English between 1 January 2020 and 14 November 2022.

findingsOf 291 publications included, 175 (60%) followed individuals with confirmed COVID-19 over time for PCC and 116 (40%) used a prespecified PCC definition. There was substantial heterogeneity in study design, geography, age group, PCC conditions/symptoms assessed and their classification and duration of follow-up. Among studies using a prespecified PCC definition, author-defined criteria (51%) were more common than criteria recommended by major public health organisations (19%). Measurement periods for PCC outcomes from date of acute COVID-19 test were primarily 3 to <6 months (39.2%), followed by 6 to <12 months (27.5%) and <3 months (22.9%). When classified by organ/system, constitutional-related PCC were the most frequently assessed in adult (86%) and paediatric (87%) populations. Within constitutional symptoms, fatigue was most frequently assessed in adult (91.6%) and paediatric (95.0%) populations, followed by fever/chills (37.9% and 55%, respectively).

conclusionsPCC definitions are heterogenous across real-world studies, which limits reliable comparisons between studies. However, some similarities were observed in terms of the most frequently measured PCC-associated symptoms/conditions, which may aid clinical management of patients with PCC.CRD42022376111.

Indexed as

COVID-19ChildCOVID-19 TestingHumansPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeSARS-CoV-2COVID-19infectious diseasessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38233057
PMCPMC10806676

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.