ArticleAnales del sistema sanitario de Navarra2025
[Long-term persistence of post-COVID-19 symptoms: A two-year follow-up of a Primary Care cohort].
Article in Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Primary care research: The science of proximity - How can we transform everyday practice into a driver of scientific progress?]Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2026Article
- [Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra in 2025: Progress continues].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2026Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein and Molecular Mimicry: An Immunoinformatic Screen for Cross-Reactive Autoantigen Candidates.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- [Some contributions of the COVID-19 pandemic to learning on public health,clinical and management].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Article
- Immune dysregulation and endothelial dysfunction associate with a pro-thrombotic profile in Long COVID.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to determine the prevalence of long COVID two years after initial infection, identify prognostic factors, and assess its impact on quality of life. METHODOLOGY: An ambispective cohort study was conducted with patients aged = 18 years from two health centers in Málaga, Spain, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2020 and May 2021. Systematic random sampling was performed in October 2022, with 5% precision, 5% alpha error, and 25% expected losses. The cohort was followed until May 2023. Dependent variables included long COVID (= 1 symptom lasting =8 weeks), symptom count, quality of life (EuroQol 5-D), and global health perception (EQ-EVA). Independent variables included age, sex, severity of initial infection severity, vaccination status, comorbidities, and reinfection.
resultsOf 914 eligible individuals, 173 patients were sampled (mean age 47 years, 58.4% female). Long COVID was observed in 32.36% of participants, with 23% affected two years after infection. Fatigue and anosmia/dysgeusia were the most frequent symptoms. Prognostic factors for long COVID included higher initial infection severity, younger age, and reinfection. For symptom count, factors were depression, initial infection severity, and reinfection. Health perception was eight points lower in long COVID patients (77.72: SD=17.10 vs 86.15; SD=16.25; p<0.001). Female sex, older age, fewer comorbidities, and more vaccine doses were associated with better quality of life.
conclusionsThirty-two percent of patients experienced long COVID, mainly fatigue and anosmia/dysgeusia. It associates with higher initial severity, younger age, and reinfection, negatively impacting quality of life.
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.