ArticleJAMA network open2025
Variability in Long COVID Definitions and Validation of Published Prevalence Rates.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Post-COVID syndrome in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh: a systematic narrative review of epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and healthcare system responses.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- "It's sad, and I want to go back to how things were before": a qualitative study of young people's experiences of living with long COVID.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- The Long Tail of Long COVID-19: Broad and Extensive Increase in Utilization Within an Integrated Healthcare System.Cureus · 2026Article
- Research In Your Mailbox: Remote Blood Self-sampling Enables Participation of Underserved Populations in Longitudinal Studies.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Obesity and Long COVID: intersecting epidemics?BMC public health · 2026Article
- Long-term cardiovascular impact of COVID-19 among hospitalised and non-hospitalised populations: a narrative synthesis review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative risk of post-acute sequelae following SARS-CoV-2 or influenza virus infection: A retrospective cohort study among United States adults.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Observational
- Effects of long COVID on healthcare utilization.PloS one · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Long COVID definitions vary widely, and no consensus exists on how to accurately measure its prevalence, complicating both clinical care and research. Objective: To assess long COVID prevalence using various definitions from published literature. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multicenter cohort study used data from the longitudinal Innovative Support for Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE). Participants aged 18 years or older with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 illness at the time of their index SARS-CoV-2 test enrolled at 8 sites across the US from December 11, 2020, through August 29, 2022, with follow-up surveys collected through February 28, 2023. Exposure: Positive or negative SARS-CoV-2 test result at the time of acute symptoms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Long COVID prevalence among INSPIRE participants with a positive vs negative index SARS-CoV-2 test, based on long COVID definitions in published literature. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of published definitions compared with self-reported long COVID. Results: A total of 4575 INSPIRE participants were included (mean [SD] age, 40.40 [14.58] years). Most were female (3013 of 4448 [67.7%]) and aged 18 to 49 years (3338 of 4541 [73.5%]). Applying 5 published definitions for long COVID yielded a prevalence that ranged from 30.84% (95% CI, 29.33%-32.40%) to 42.01% (95% CI, 40.37%-43.66%) at 3 months and 14.23% (95% CI, 13.01%-15.55%) to 21.94% (95% CI, 20.47%-23.47%) at 6 months postinfection; in the 5 comparator studies, reported prevalence of long COVID at 1 to 5 months postinfection ranged from 2.6% (≥84 days) to 47.4% (3-5 months) and at 6 or more months postinfection ranged from 10.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-11.0%) to 61.9% (6-11 months). Using participants' self-reported long COVID as a criterion standard, existing published definitions had low-to-moderate sensitivity (up to 66.32% [95% CI, 62.59%-69.90%] at 3 months and 45.53% [95% CI, 41.51%-49.60%] at 6 months) and high specificity (up to 81.29% [95% CI, 79.32%-83.15%] at 3 months and 94.26% [95% CI, 92.98%-95.37%]) at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, variability in long COVID prevalence across published definitions highlights the need for a standardized, validated definition to improve clinical recognition and research comparability, ultimately guiding more accurate diagnosis and treatment strategies.
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.