ArticleRevista de saude publica2025
COVID-19 long: evaluation of quality of life, sarcopenia and proteinuria.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate quality of life, sarcopenia and proteinuria, six and 12 months after infection with mild and moderate COVID-19.
methodsWe evaluated 253 individuals with mild (n = 119) and moderate (n = 134) clinical presentation for COVID-19 (reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction-RT-PCR) after six (T6) and 12 (T12) months from the date of acute infection (T0). Quality of life, pain, risk for sarcopenia, muscle strength and proteinuria were assessed by the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) questionnaire; visual analogue scale (VAS); the Simple Questionnaire to Rapidly Diagnose Sarcopenia (SARC-F); hand grip and sit-up and the urinalysis strip, respectively.
resultsThe average age was 44 ± 10 and 43 ± 12 years; female 68 and 59% for the mild and moderate groups, respectively. Seventy-five percent or more of patients were vaccinated with at least two doses before acquiring COVID-19 infection. Individuals with a moderate clinical presentation in relation to mild cases were hypertensive (23 and 6%, p < 0.001) and had diabetes mellitus (9 and 2%; p = 0.01) at the time of COVID-19 acute infection. The moderate group at T6 presented lower functional capacity (SF36: 46 ± 20 vs. 61 ± 24); more pain (SF36: 45 ± 29 vs. 67 ± 32 and VAS: 55 vs. 32%); greater dysfunctionality for daily activities (Duke Activity Status Index-DASI: 40 ± 11 vs. 45 ± 10); lower limb muscle strength (sit-up: 9 ± 2 vs. 11 ± 2); higher risk for sarcopenia (SARC-F: 6 ± 4 vs. 4 ± 3) and higher proteinuria ≥ 1"+": 59 vs. 42%) compared to the mild group. After 12 months, the moderate group remained with greater pain (SF36+VAS) and more dysfunctionality in daily activities (DASI) compared to the mild group.
conclusionComparing T12 to T6, we observed that the mild group had worse functional capacity; more pain (SF36+VAS); lower upper limb strength and higher proteinuria ≥ 1"+": 63 vs. 42%). We observed a negative correlation between SARC-F score and sit-up; functional capacity (SF36).
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.