Cited by 139Long-Term Effects of COVID-19COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesInterstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis

One‐year follow‐up CT findings in COVID‐19 patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Open access
Watanabe, Atsuyuki, So, Matsuo, Iwagami, Masao, Fukunaga, Koichi, Takagi, Hisato, Kabata, Hiroki, Kuno, Toshiki·2022·Respirology

Abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) often causes radiological and functional pulmonary sequelae. However, evidence on 1-year follow-up of pulmonary sequelae is limited. We aimed to investigate the characteristics and time-course of pulmonary sequelae after recovery from COVID-19 through 1-year follow-up. We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases on 25 February 2022, and included studies with computed tomography (CT) findings at the 1-year follow-up. The extracted data on CT findings were analysed using a one-group meta-analysis. We further analysed the data in relation to COVID-19 severity, improvement rate and lung function. Fifteen eligible studies (N = 3134) were included. One year after COVID-19, 32.6% (95% CI 24.0-42.6, I 2 = 92.9%) presented with residual CT abnormalities. Ground-glass opacity and fibrotic-like changes were frequently observed in 21.2% (95% CI 15.4-28.4, I 2 = 86.7%) and 20.6% (95% CI 11.0-35.2, I 2 = 91.9%), respectively. While the gradual recovery was seen on CT (52.9% [mid-term] vs. 32.6% [1 year]), the frequency of CT abnormalities was higher in the severe/critical cases than in the mild/moderate cases (37.7% vs. 20.7%). In particular, fibrotic changes showed little improvement between 4-7 months and 1 year after COVID-19. Pulmonary function tests at 1 year also showed the decline in diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide, especially in severe/critical cases. Our meta-analysis indicated that residual CT abnormalities were common in hospita…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/resp.14311

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Watanabe, A., So, M., Iwagami, M., Fukunaga, K., Takagi, H., Kabata, H., & Kuno, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Tsukuba Hospital (JP)
  • Mount Sinai Beth Israel (US)
  • University of Tsukuba (JP)
  • Keio University (JP)
  • Shizuoka Medical Center (JP)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Kuno, Toshiki
Venue
Respirology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-06-12
Volume
27
Issue
8
Pages
605-616
ISSN
  • 1323-7799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1843
OpenAlex
W4282561286
Cited by
139
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 12
FWCI
4.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Respirology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Interstitial Lung Diseases and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, pulmonary sequelae, long COVID, ground-glass opacities, pulmonary fibrosis, disease severity, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, lung function decline, one-year follow-up
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Lung, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Disease Progression

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.

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