ArticleBMC public health2025
Follow-up of long COVID based on the definition of WHO: a multi-centre cross-sectional questionnaire-based study.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers to Long COVID Care in the U.S.: An Application of Levesque et al.'s Access Framework.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Suppression and resurgence: the evolving epidemiology of seasonal influenza from 2015 to 2024 in a core urban district of Beijing, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Long COVID-19: A Concept Analysis.Infectious disease reports · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince long COVID has hindered people from normal life, it is essential to understand its full spectrum of manifestation. However, it was heterogeneous in the existing studies and few large-scale studies have been conducted on Asian populations. Here, we conducted a multi-centre questionnaire-based study among Chinese people to explore the long COVID based on the definition of WHO.
methodsDuring March 20, 2023 and June 18, 2023, individuals with a history of confirmed or self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from three hospitals to fill out the questionnaire for long COVID. Each symptom was assigned with 0 to 3 points based on their severity. And the long COVID score was a sum of these points of each symptom. The reporting rate, time trend and risk factors of long COVID stratified by different systems were explored.
results3,693 individuals were recruited for the study. The reporting rate of at least one persistent long COVID symptoms and symptoms impacting daily life was 30.2% (1,117) and 10.7% (394). Systemic symptoms (20.7%, 765) were most easily reported. The most common symptoms were fatigue (16.3%, 602), cough (6.3%, 234) and expectoration (5.5%, 203). The reporting rate of long COVID and long COVID score decreased over time during a 180-day follow-up period (P < 0.05). For long COVID, older age (OR: 1.63, 1.38-1.93), female (OR: 1.19, 1.03-1.38) and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection (OR: 3.56, 2.63-4.80) were risk factors; while number of COVID-19 vaccine doses (OR: 0.87, 0.81-0.94) was a protective factor. The use of traditional Chinese medicine (OR: 0.51, 0.37-0.71) was a protective factor for symptoms impacting daily life.
conclusionsEarly interventions should be taken to minimize the impact of long COVID, especially for the elderly, females and those with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. COVID-19 booster vaccination might play a potential role in minimizing the impact of long COVID.
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.