Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 960

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review

Open access
Michelen, Melina, Manoharan, Lakshmi, Elkheir, Natalie, Cheng, Vincent, Dagens, Andrew, Hastie, Claire, O'Hara, Margaret, Suett, Jake, Dahmash, Dania, Bugaeva, Polina, Rigby, Ishmeala, Munblit, Daniel, Harriss, Eli, Burls, Amanda, Foote, Carole, Scott, Janet, Carson, Gail, Olliaro, Piero, Sigfrid, Louise, Stavropoulou, Charitini·2021·BMJ Global Health
DOI 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005427
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: While it is now apparent clinical sequelae (long COVID) may persist after acute COVID-19, their nature, frequency and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on long COVID characteristics, to help inform clinical management, rehabilitation strategies and interventional studies to improve long-term outcomes. Methods: A living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database, LitCovid and Google Scholar were searched till 17 March 2021. Studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 at 12 weeks or more post onset were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the tool produced by Hoy et al . Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence. Results: A total of 39 studies were included: 32 cohort, 6 cross-sectional and 1 case–control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries and few included children. Studies reported on 10 951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most included previously hospitalised people (78%, 8520/10 951). The longest mean follow-up time was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post COVID-19 onset. Over 60 physical and psychological signs and symptoms with wide prevalence were reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), general malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%) and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of patients reported reduced quality of life; 26% (10/39) of studies presented evidence of reduced pulmonary function. Conclusion: Long COVID is a complex condition with prolonged heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of studies precludes a precise case definition or risk evaluation. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised, controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors and biomarkers to characterise long COVID in different at-risk populations and settings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020211131.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005427

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Cited by

See all 960

Metadata

Authors
Michelen, M., Manoharan, L., Elkheir, N., Cheng, V., Dagens, A., Hastie, C., O'Hara, M., Suett, J., Dahmash, D., Bugaeva, P., Rigby, I., Munblit, D., Harriss, E., Burls, A., Foote, C., Scott, J., Carson, G., Olliaro, P., Sigfrid, L., & Stavropoulou, C.
Venue
BMJ Global Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-09
Volume
6
Issue
9
Pages
e005427
ISSN
2059-7908 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005427
OpenAlex
W3197720849
Cited by
960
References
13
FWCI
30.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.