ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2025
"In-Flu-Enza and Out-Flew Hair:" Post-Epidemic Health and the Importance of the History of Epidemics.
Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When COVID-19 survivors reported ongoing symptoms or new health concerns following their infections in 2020 and early 2021, many medical practitioners and health agencies questioned the connection between novel viruses and long-term health impacts. Medical historians studying epidemics understand the connection between viral infection and health complications emerging immediately or years or decades later. In this essay, I explore the similarities between the medical fallout of the 1918 influenza and COVID-19 pandemics. Despite the differences between the viruses, these novel strains produced similar medium- and long-term health difficulties, including cardiovascular dysfunction and crushing fatigue. As I demonstrate, a significant difference between these two pandemics is in the response by medical practitioners. Following influenza, practitioners expected new and worsening health issues and took their patients' complaints seriously, offering support through food delivery, convalescent care, specialist oversight, and in-home nursing. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, many practitioners characterized ongoing or new symptoms as anxiety. Patients led efforts to recognize Long COVID as an authentic medical condition, and today, physicians around the country refer their patients to Long COVID clinics. The value of medical history is apparent in this comparison-if practitioners understand how historical epidemics impacted various populations, they expect that in the epidemic aftermath or the period following an acute epidemic crisis, not all patients get well. Including the history of epidemics in public health education, continuing education programming, and even medical school curricula can resist epidemic erasure and empower medical practitioners to expect the unexpected.
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.