ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Living evidence syntheses for long COVID therapeutics: combining rigorous protocols to build efficiency while maintaining rigour.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the rapidly changing evidence, the creation and maintenance of a living systematic review database of therapeutics for long COVID is an ideal and necessary approach considering the rapidly changing evidence that continues to be identified. This paper describes methods and results of a collaboration between three teams who produced a living literature review on long COVID therapeutics-Australian Living Evidence Collaboration (ALEC), Bond University, and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L.OVE (Living Overview of Evidence) database.
methodsWe took a collaborative and iterative approach to analyse the commonalities and differences between each project and develop an agreed comprehensive, collective approach. A plan for ongoing (monthly) updates and dissemination was built.
resultsDespite minor differences, there was also a clear alignment of goals between the three teams. Differences in search strategy, search methods and screening criteria were identified, investigated, and resolved. A comparison of overlaps helped establish a common collaborative approach. A combined library of 218 randomised controlled trials and 56 systematic reviews was created which led to the optimised search strategy. The combined 218 RCT library covered 20 different treatment categories of which 14 were pharmacological and 6 were non-pharmacological. Further refinements and collaborations led to a transformed initial database library of 102 randomised controlled trials as of June 2024 before the team commenced monthly updates.
conclusionsDespite initial differences, a comprehensive search strategy based on the collaboration of the three teams was developed. Ongoing monthly updates were initiated and are now planned for well into the future to make continual and rapid updates to the library of evidence surrounding therapeutics for long COVID. Where global public health is concerned, it is valuable to review and refine processes in the early stages, so that they can be reliable. We recommend open collaboration to achieve the goal of creating accessible, efficient, and reliable evidence syntheses.
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.