Cited by 25Long-Term Effects of COVID-19COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesMachine Learning in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Developing a Long COVID Phenotype for Postacute COVID-19 in a National Primary Care Sentinel Cohort: Observational Retrospective Database Analysis

Open access

Abstract

Background: Following COVID-19, up to 40% of people have ongoing health problems, referred to as postacute COVID-19 or long COVID (LC). LC varies from a single persisting symptom to a complex multisystem disease. Research has flagged that this condition is underrecorded in primary care records, and seeks to better define its clinical characteristics and management. Phenotypes provide a standard method for case definition and identification from routine data and are usually machine-processable. An LC phenotype can underpin research into this condition. Objective: This study aims to develop a phenotype for LC to inform the epidemiology and future research into this condition. We compared clinical symptoms in people with LC before and after their index infection, recorded from March 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021. We also compared people recorded as having acute infection with those with LC who were hospitalized and those who were not. Methods: We used data from the Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC) of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database. This network was recruited to be nationally representative of the English population. We developed an LC phenotype using our established 3-step ontological method: (1) ontological step (defining the reasoning process underpinning the phenotype, (2) coding step (exploring what clinical terms are available, and (3) logical extract model (testing performance). We created a version of this phenotype using Protégé in the ontology web language for BioPortal and using PhenoFlow. Next, we used the phenotype to compare people with LC (1) with regard to their symptoms in the year prior to acquiring COVID-19 and (2) with people with acute COVID-19. We also compared hospitalized people with LC with those not hospitalized. We compared sociodemographic details, comorbidities, and Office of National Statistics–defined LC symptoms between groups. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Results: The long-COVID phenotype differentiated people hospitalized with LC from people who were not and where no index infection was identified. The PCSC (N=7.4 million) includes 428,479 patients with acute COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by a laboratory test and 10,772 patients with clinically diagnosed COVID-19. A total of 7471 (1.74%, 95% CI 1.70-1.78) people were coded as having LC, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.7-14.3) had a hospital admission related to acute COVID-19, and 6462 (86.5%, 95% CI 85.7-87.3) were not hospitalized, of whom 2728 (42.2%) had no COVID-19 index date recorded. In addition, 1009 (13.5%, 95% CI 12.73-14.28) people with LC were hospitalized compared to 17,993 (4.5%, 95% CI 4.48-4.61; P<.001) with uncomplicated COVID-19. Conclusions: Our LC phenotype enables the identification of individuals with the condition in routine data sets, facilitating their comparison with unaffected people through retrospective research. This phenotype and study protocol to explore its face validity contributes to a better understanding of LC.

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 · 10.2196/36989

Cites

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

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?

  • Several studies reported that the disease severity correlated with the frequency and duration of sequelae.

    “Several studies reported that the disease severity correlated with the frequency and duration of sequelae [31-33].”

    From Protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against long COVID syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [31]

    In Comparison With Prior Work (page unavailable), the paper reports that hospitalization and ICU admission were more common among patients with long COVID than among other patients with acute COVID-19, and says hospital attendance during acute infection appears to be a risk factor for long COVID. This supports an association between indicators of acute severity and the occurrence of sequelae, but the paper does not establish that disease severity correlates with how long sequelae last. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among reported risk factors of developing long COVID, such as older age, female sex, and underlying comorbidities, the severity of the acute infection is substantial.

    “Among the reported risk factors of developing long COVID, such as older age, female sex, and underlying comorbidities [3,4], the severity of the acute infection is substantial [31,32].”
  • According to a multicenter retrospective study, hospitalized and ICU-admitted patients were three and five times more likely to have long COVID, respectively.

    “According to a multicenter retrospective study, hospitalized and ICU-admitted patients were three and five times more likely to have long COVID, respectively [31].”

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.3399/bjgp.2021.0265 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103722 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1177/01410768211032850 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/s41591-021-01292-y · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1101/2021.06.24.21259277 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/s41746-020-00308-0 · DOI
  7. 10.3399/BJGP.2021.0301 · DOI
  8. 2020, COVID-19 Rapid Guideline: Managing the Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  9. Papež, V, 2018, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2017, 1352
  10. 10.14236/jhi.v22i2.170 · DOI
  11. 10.3399/bjgp17x692645 · DOI
  12. 10.2196/21434 · DOI
  13. 10.14236/jhi.v23i4.920 · DOI
  14. 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005427 · DOI
  15. 10.1503/cmaj.190757 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/jmv.27456 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00383-0 · DOI
  18. 10.1002/jmv.27415 · DOI
  19. 10.1145/2757001.2757003 · DOI
  20. 10.1136/bmj.n1262 · DOI
  21. 10.2196/29072 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/gigascience/giab059 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30371-6 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30632-0 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/jamia/ocab025 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mayor, N., Meza-Torres, B., Okusi, C., Delanerolle, G., Chapman, M., Wang, W., Anand, S., Feher, M., Macartney, J., Byford, R., Joy, M., Gatenby, P., Curcin, V., Greenhalgh, T., Delaney, B., & de Lusignan, S.
Affiliations
  • Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
de Lusignan, Simon
Venue
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
Published
2022-08-11
Volume
8
Issue
8
Pages
e36989
ISSN
2369-2960 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4286341385
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 1
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Royal College of General Practitioners
  • UK Research and Innovation (ES/V010069/1)
  • Cancer Research UK (25310)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (BRC-1215–20008, 132807)
  • Imperial College London
  • European Commission (HORIZON2020, COVID-19, 765141)
  • Patient Safety Translational Research Centre
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/T004509/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/V010069/1)
  • NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
  • NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (1215-20008, BRC-1215-20008)
  • Health Data Research UK
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
long COVID, primary care records, hospitalization, clinical symptoms, comorbidities, sociodemographic factors, case definition, Protégé, ICD-11
MeSH terms
COVID-19, COVID-19 Testing, Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome, Humans, Phenotype, Primary Health Care, Retrospective Studies

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