Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38623399›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Prevalence and risk factors for long COVID among adults in Scotland using electronic health records: a national, retrospective, observational cohort study.

Karen Jeffrey, Lana Woolford, Rishma Maini, Siddharth Basetti, Ashleigh Batchelor, David Weatherill, Chris White, Vicky Hammersley, Tristan Millington, Calum Macdonald and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
11.8field-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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Long COVID and the kidney.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2025
    Review
  7. Pre-pandemic diabetes and risk of long COVID: longitudinal evidence.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

22 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Karen JeffreyUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lana WoolfordUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Rishma MainiPublic Health Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh, UK.
Siddharth BasettiNHS Highland, Inverness, UK.
Ashleigh BatchelorPatient and Public Contributors, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
David WeatherillPatient and Public Contributors, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Chris WhitePatient and Public Contributors, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Vicky HammersleyUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Tristan MillingtonUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Calum MacdonaldUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Jennifer K QuintNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Robin KerrNHS Borders, Melrose, UK.
Steven KerrUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Syed Ahmar ShahUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Igor RudanUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Adeniyi Francis FagbamigbeInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, UK.
Colin R SimpsonUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiPublic Health Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh, UK.
Chris RobertsonPublic Health Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh, UK.
Lewis RitchieAcademic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Luke DainesUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBImperial College London · GBMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBNHS Dumfries and Galloway · GBNHS Highland · GBPublic Health Scotland · GBUniversity of Strathclyde · GBVictoria University of Wellington · NZ

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Long COVID is a debilitating multisystem condition. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of long COVID in the adult population of Scotland, and to identify risk factors associated with its development. Methods: In this national, retrospective, observational cohort study, we analysed electronic health records (EHRs) for all adults (≥18 years) registered with a general medical practice and resident in Scotland between March 1, 2020, and October 26, 2022 (98-99% of the population). We linked data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory testing and prescribing. Four outcome measures were used to identify long COVID: clinical codes, free text in primary care records, free text on sick notes, and a novel operational definition. The operational definition was developed using Poisson regression to identify clinical encounters indicative of long COVID from a sample of negative and positive COVID-19 cases matched on time-varying propensity to test positive for SARS-CoV-2. Possible risk factors for long COVID were identified by stratifying descriptive statistics by long COVID status. Findings: Of 4,676,390 participants, 81,219 (1.7%) were identified as having long COVID. Clinical codes identified the fewest cases (n = 1,092, 0.02%), followed by free text (n = 8,368, 0.2%), sick notes (n = 14,469, 0.3%), and the operational definition (n = 64,193, 1.4%). There was limited overlap in cases identified by the measures; however, temporal trends and patient characteristics were consistent across measures. Compared with the general population, a higher proportion of people with long COVID were female (65.1% versus 50.4%), aged 38-67 (63.7% versus 48.9%), overweight or obese (45.7% versus 29.4%), had one or more comorbidities (52.7% versus 36.0%), were immunosuppressed (6.9% versus 3.2%), shielding (7.9% versus 3.4%), or hospitalised within 28 days of testing positive (8.8% versus 3.3%%), and had tested positive before Omicron became the dominant variant (44.9% versus 35.9%). The operational definition identified long COVID cases with combinations of clinical encounters (from four symptoms, six investigation types, and seven management strategies) recorded in EHRs within 4-26 weeks of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. These combinations were significantly (p < 0.0001) more prevalent in positive COVID-19 patients than in matched negative controls. In a case-crossover analysis, 16.4% of those identified by the operational definition had similar healthcare patterns recorded before testing positive. Interpretation: The prevalence of long COVID presenting in general practice was estimated to be 0.02-1.7%, depending on the measure used. Due to challenges in diagnosing long COVID and inconsistent recording of information in EHRs, the true prevalence of long COVID is likely to be higher. The operational definition provided a novel approach but relied on a restricted set of symptoms and may misclassify individuals with pre-existing health conditions. Further research is needed to refine and validate this approach. Funding: Chief Scientist Office (Scotland), Medical Research Council, and BREATHE.

Indexed as

Clinical codingLong COVIDMatched-pair analysisPopulation surveillancePrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID38623399
PMCPMC11016856
OpenAlexW4394711096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.