The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 48 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background Acute effects of COVID-19 can be life-threatening. Alterations in mental health during the active infection have been documented, but the long-term consequences are less clear. Method A systematic review was undertaken to investigate the effect of COVID-19 infection on long-term mental health outcomes. Three databases [PubMed, Medline (Ovid) and Cochrane library] were searched between 1st October 2019 and 29th August 2021 with additional hand searching to identify all published studies reporting symptoms of generalised anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or sleep disturbance in participants at least one month after COVID-19 infection. The prevalence and mean symptom score of each were assessed. Results Eight hundred and eighty five studies were found, of which 33 were included in the review involving a total of 6743 participants. The studies’ risk of bias were typically fair quality. The median study age of participants was 57.8 years (IQR 49.3–60.7), with 63.0% male (IQR 57.0%–73.0%). Participants typically experienced no or mild symptoms of long-term anxiety (GAD-7, STAI-S, HADS) and depression (PHQ-9, BDI, PHQ-2, HADS). Prevalence varied depending on the measurement tool. Sleep disturbances (primarily insomnia) were most commonly reported as mild. PTSD prevalence was similar to anxiety and depression. Conclusion The overall effect of the pandemic has been linked with worsening psychiatric symptoms. However, the long-term effect from direct COVID-19 infection has been associated with no or mild symptoms. Studies exhibited the long-term prevalence of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and sleep disturbances to be comparable to general population levels.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 Not checked yet · 23 Own result · 14 Own interpretation · 10 Own method · 6 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants typically experienced no or mild symptoms of long-term anxiety (GAD-7, STAI-S, HADS) and depression (PHQ-9, BDI, PHQ-2, HADS).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“The included participants typically exhibited no worse than mild symptoms of anxiety and depression.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Abstract > Results
plainn = 6,743- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cohorts followed up for more than three months had half the prevalence of depression compared to those that were followed up for less than three months, reporting a prevalence of 10.36% and 20.84% respectively.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plaincorrelationaln = 1,187- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One study reported no anxiety with an average score of 1.88 (95% CI = 0.68, 3.08; (Kang et al., 2021)”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This included 3431 patients 17.52% of whom were experiencing at least mildly severe anxiety symptoms.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
plainn = 3,431- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Depression prevalence in severe COVID-19 cases was 20.39% out of 309 patients, averaging none to mild symptoms of depression.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plainn = 309- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An average MOS-SS score of 20.58 (95% CI = 19.95, 21.21) was reported representing mild symptoms of sleep disturbance (Mazza et al., 2020).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two studies used the ISI with an overall insomnia prevalence of 34.64% (Li et al., 2021, Morin et al., 2021).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prevalence of PTSD in severe cases of COVID-19 was 19% from 200 patients.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plainn = 200- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prevalence varied depending on the measurement tool.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Abstract > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PTSD prevalence in cohorts followed up longer than three months was slightly higher than less than three months follow-up at 18.99% and 12.19% respectively (Supplement 8).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight hundred and eighty five studies were found, of which 33 were included in the review involving a total of 6743 participants.”
- Also stated in: § Study selection and characteristics · plain
“The search resulted in a total of 885 articles (Fig. 1 - PRISMA flow chart). After title, abstract and full text screening, thirty-three studies were included”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Abstract > Results
plainn = 6,743- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Study selection and characteristics · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median study age of participants was 57.8 years (IQR 49.3–60.7), with 63.0% male (IQR 57.0%–73.0%).”
- Also stated in: § Study selection and characteristics · plain
“The median study age of patients was 57.8 years old (interquartile range [IQR] 49.3 to 60.7 years old) and the median study proportion of male participants was 63.0% male (IQR 57.0% to 73.0%).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Abstract > Results
plainn = 6,743- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Study selection and characteristics · plain
In the paper
“Finally, D'Cruz et al. (2021) reported a prevalence of 57%, however, since a validated tool was not used, this was excluded from the statistical summary.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites D'Cruz et al. (2021)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the prevalence of sleep quality disturbance was 40% out of 30 cases, with most participants indicating no poor sleep.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plainn = 30- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nine studies excluded patients with a history of psychiatric disorders (Albu et al., 2021, Guo et al., 2020, Mazza, 2021, Mazza et al., 2020, Mendez et al., 2021, Negrini et al., 2020, Ortelli et al., 2021, Taquet et al., 2021, van den Borst et al., 2021) , with the other seventeen studies not specifying.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Study selection and characteristics
plainn = 9- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Kang et al. (2021) and Wong et al. (2020) reported no depression overall, with average scores of 2.75 (95% CI = 1.21, 4.29) and 5.31 (95% CI = 4.23, 6.38).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seven studies included participants with a lifetime psychiatric history (de Graaf et al., 2021, Horn et al., 2020, Kang et al., 2021, Park et al., 2020b, Poyraz et al., 2021, Tarsitani et al., 2021) with a prevalence of 40%, 13.9%, 30%, 15.4%, 10% and 8% respectively, and (Noviello et al., 2021) included 4.8% and 1.3% patients with anxiety and depression history respectively.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Study selection and characteristics
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies exhibited the long-term prevalence of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and sleep disturbances to be comparable to general population levels.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Abstract > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: General-population mental health levels during the pandemic provide a valid benchmark for long-term mental health after COVID-19 infection.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Past epidemics caused by SARS, MERS, or ebola have demonstrated that half of the survivors suffered from at least one of the psychiatric conditions examined in this review (Chua et al., 2004; Keita et al., 2017).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anxiety prevalence percentage was highest in GAD-7 studies, likely due to the low cut-off score used”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The protocol for this study was published in the PROSPERO register (CRD42021239505, 2021).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Study design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meta-analysis, as outlined in the protocol, was not deemed appropriate due to the expected clinical heterogeneity between studies.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Symptoms were lower than the prevalence reported in a control group from one of the included studies (Noviello et al., 2021) and comparable to similar studies in the general public during the pandemic (Salari et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020; Krishnamoorthy et al., 2020), indicating relatively limited long-term anxiety in COVID-19 patients.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Noviello et al., 2021
- Not checked yetcites Salari et al., 2020
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2020
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: General-population mental health levels during the pandemic provide a valid benchmark for long-term mental health after COVID-19 infection.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report the findings in adherence to the PRISMA guidelines.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Study design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The definition of ‘long-term’ was pre-specified in our protocol”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Inclusion and exclusion criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“It found similarities in the trajectory of other coronavirus epidemics with a low prevalence of mental health conditions (Rogers et al., 2020).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogers et al., 2020 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Risk of bias assessment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, the average GAD-7 scores from Hasan et al., 2021 and Gou et al. (2020) were higher than the general public before the COVID-19 pandemic in a German population (Löwe et al., 2008) while the average scores from Park et al., (2020b)) and Kang et al. (2021) were lower indicating uncertainty.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Löwe et al., 2008
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two investigators (TS and NWB) independently screened articles for inclusion.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Data extraction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Even when disregarding the potential for over-sensitivity of diagnosis in the included studies, the overall prevalence for anxiety was lower compared with SARS, MERS, and ebola epidemics (Chua et al., 2004; Keita et al., 2017; Jeong et al., 2016) than studies that looked at short-term symptoms (Krishnamoorthy et al., 2020).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sensitivity analysis was conducted comparing outcome prevalence from at least 3 months post-diagnosis (excluding severe COVID-19 cases).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Data analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Two independent authors (NWB and TS) assessed the risk of bias (RoB) using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Wells et al., 2000).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Materials and methods > Risk of bias assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wells et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Conversely, Xiong et al. (2021) had the lowest prevalence which is likely to be due to clinical interviews which are less likely to result in overestimation compared to self-rated questionnaires.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xiong et al. (2021) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Longer-term assessment may also offer more reliable estimates and may also account for participants’ psychiatric history, the severity of COVID-19, and the lack of comparable controls.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion > Strengths and limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The findings from adult hospital or treatment-centre samples can be generalised to COVID-19 survivors outside those settings.
“All studies examined an adult sample from treatment centres or hospitals.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Mental health symptoms measured at follow-up are attributable to direct COVID-19 infection rather than to indirect pandemic effects.
“However, the long-term effect from direct COVID-19 infection has been associated with no or mild symptoms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
General-population mental health levels during the pandemic provide a valid benchmark for long-term mental health after COVID-19 infection.
“Studies exhibited the long-term prevalence of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and sleep disturbances to be comparable to general population levels.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The COVID-19 pandemic overall has been associated with worsening psychiatric symptoms.
“The overall effect of the pandemic has been linked with worsening psychiatric symptoms.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The PCL-5, TSQ, DTS, and IES-R instruments provide comparable measures of PTSD.
“As for PTSD, overall PCL-5 and TSQ scores were lower compared to DTS and IES-R scores.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Studies conducted 1 year on from the onset of the pandemic have shown that its impact on mental health was on-going (Benke et al., 2022; Bourmistova et al., 2022; Fountoulakis et al., 2022)”
From Social connections combat loneliness and promote wellbeing among college students coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic (2025) · cites this paper as Bourmistova et al., 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
“PTSD prevalence in cohorts followed up longer than three months was slightly higher than less than three months follow-up at 18.99% and 12.19% respectively (Supplement 8).”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Discussion
“Finally, the sensitivity analysis revealed a decrease in PTSD prevalence with longer follow-up.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Fifteen studies assessed anxiety in mild to moderate COVID-19 cases (see Fig. 2 ), five using the GAD-7”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
Reported 15 · recomputed 14
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
“two studies using the DTS (Alemanno et al., 2021, Mendez et al., 2021)”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Secondary outcomes
“Average PCL-5 scores of 8.00 (95% CI = 6.57, 9.43), 10.99 (95% CI = 9.37, 12.61) and 8.77 (95% CI = 6.42, 11.12) were reported by Guo et al. (2020), Mendez et al., 2021 and Kang et al. (2021) respectively.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
“seven using HADS(Morin et al., 2021, Noviello et al., 2021, Poyraz et al., 2021, Tanriverdi et al., 2021, Tomasoni et al., 2021, van den Borst et al., 2021, Venturelli et al., 2021)”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
“Out of the six studies that used the HADS, only two reported mean scores both indicating an overall normal level of anxiety.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
“one using STAI-S (Mazza, 2021)”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Results > Primary outcome
“The only study using the STAI-S identified minor symptoms of anxiety with Mendez et al., 2021 reporting 33.66 (95% CI = 31.88, 35.44)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Declarations > Conflict of interest
“RS has in the last three years received an honorarium from Lundbeck. BC, NB, TS and PB declare no conflicts of interest.”
§ Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review > Declaration of Competing Interest
“All authors declare no conflicts of Interest.”
Citations
Cites
Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China
Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ren, L., Zhao, J., Hu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, G., Xu, J., Gu, X., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30183-5 · Cited by 48,884
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 17,633
The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3532534 · Cited by 16,394
The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30460-8 · Cited by 16,378
Santomauro, D. F., Mantilla Herrera, A. M., Shadid, J., Zheng, P., Ashbaugh, C., Pigott, D. M., Abbafati, C., Adolph, C., Amlag, J. O., Aravkin, A. Y., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02143-7 · Cited by 5,444 · cited 1×
“This suggests that the global increase in mental health sequelae reported by Santomauro et al. (2021) is more likely due to psychosocial factors rather than a direct long-term effect of the virus.”
BackgroundNalbandian, A., Sehgal, K., Gupta, A., Madhavan, M. V., McGroder, C., Stevens, J. S., Cook, J. R., Nordvig, A. S., Shalev, D., Sehrawat, T. S., et al. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01283-z · Cited by 4,862
Löwe, B., Decker, O., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Schellberg, D., Herzog, W., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2008) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e318160d093 · Cited by 4,527 · cited 1×
“(2020) were higher than the general public before the COVID-19 pandemic in a German population (Löwe et al., 2008) while the average scores from Park et al.”
BackgroundThe role of inflammation in depression: from evolutionary imperative to modern treatment target
Miller, A. H., & Raison, C. L. (2016) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri.2015.5 · Cited by 3,942
Salari, N., Hosseinian-Far, A., Jalali, R., Vaisi-Raygani, A., Rasoulpoor, S., Mohammadi, M., Rasoulpoor, S., & Khaledi-Paveh, B. (2020) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/s12992-020-00589-w · Cited by 3,560
COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence
Vindegaard, N., & Benros, M. E. (2020) · Brain, Behavior, and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.048 · Cited by 3,221 · cited 1×
“In addition, psychological, social, and job-related factors have also been shown to be associated with poor mental health outcomes (Vindegaard and Benros, 2020).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Darley, 2021, Persistent symptoms up to four months after community and hospital-managed SARS-CoV-2 infection, The Medical Journal of Australia, 10.5694/mja2.50963 · DOI
- Hasan, 2021, Mental Health of the COVID-19 Patients in Bangladesh. Mymensingh medical journal, MMJ, 30, 189
- Yu, 2020, Prevalence of sleep disturbances during COVID-19 outbreak in an urban Chinese population: a cross-sectional study, Sleep Med., 74, 18, 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.07.009 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Halat, D. H., Soltani, A., Dalli, R., Alsarraj, L., & Malki, A. M. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm12134425 · Cited by 444
“Within the first year of the pandemic, there was a 25% increase in the prevalence of depression and anxiety worldwide [13], with documented worsening of psychiatric symptoms [14], especially during lockdown, with the associated social isolation [15,16].”
BackgroundBertuccio, P., Amerio, A., Grande, E., La Vecchia, C., Costanza, A., Aguglia, A., Berardelli, I., Serafini, G., Amore, M., Pompili, M., et al. (2024) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102506 · Cited by 212
“45 In conclusion, geographical heterogeneity in suicide mortality patterns among young individuals and the worrying upward trends in some countries highlight the importance of addressing this complex issue, on a global scale, with a multidisciplinary approach.”
BackgroundFatigue and cognitive impairment after COVID-19: A prospective multicentre study
Hartung, T. J., Neumann, C., Bahmer, T. J., Chaplinskaya-Sobol, I., Endres, M., Geritz, J., Hæusler, K. G., Heuschmann, P. U., Hildesheim, H., Hinz, A., et al. (2022) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101651 · Cited by 168
“40,41 Indeed, mean anxiety scores on the GAD-7 were not higher in our patient sample than in a German general population survey during the same period.”
Hossain, M. M., Nesa, F., Das, J., Aggad, R., Tasnim, S., Bairwa, M. L., Ma, P., & Ramı́rez, G. (2022) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114814 · Cited by 184
Berg, S. K., Palm, P., Nygaard, U., Bundgaard, H., Petersen, M. N. S., Rosenkilde, S., Thorsted, A. B., Ersbøll, A. K., Thygesen, L. C., Nielsen, S. D., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/s2352-4642(22)00154-7 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Bourmistrova, N. W., Solomon, T., Braude, P., Strawbridge, R., & Carter, B.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- North Bristol NHS Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Carter, Ben
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-02
- Volume
- 299
- Pages
- 118-125
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8758130
- OpenAlex
- W3213906311
- Semantic Scholar
- 822529366cca7ca42b197910253d2232de588965
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 69
- FWCI
- 8.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, long-term psychological effects, post-COVID-19 mental health, generalized anxiety disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, sleep disorders, insomnia
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Pandemics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
