ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the lightning process intervention examining benefits and harms.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Letter to editor regarding the lightning process.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Erratum: An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the Lightning Process intervention examining benefits and harms.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To audit the outcomes of patients with long COVID after the lightning process intervention. Retrospective cross-sectional audit. Patients with long COVID were interviewed through telephone regarding their experience and response to the lightning process. Physical, emotional, and overall quality of life; perceived harms of the intervention. None of the 12 participants reported harm from the intervention. 11/12 participants reported being 85% back to normal or more; 8/12 described achieving 85% or greater satisfaction with their emotional, physical, and overall quality of life. 10/12 of the participants reported having heard negative comments about the lightning process but had nonetheless gone ahead with the treatment. This study suggests that the lightning process is a promising and safe intervention for symptoms of long COVID. Primary care clinicians can refer patients for treatment with a high chance of benefit without fear of harm. Randomized, controlled trials are indicated.
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.