Keywords
Living systematic review, COVID-19, long covid, lasting effects
This article is included in the Pathogens gateway.
This article is included in the Emerging Diseases and Outbreaks gateway.
This article is included in the Living Evidence collection.
This article is included in the Coronavirus collection.
Living systematic review, COVID-19, long covid, lasting effects
More than six months into the pandemic, our knowledge around COVID-19 continues to develop rapidly. The range of documented COVID-19 infections vary from asymptomatic to severe, but the vast majority of patients experience mild to moderate symptoms and do not require hospitalisation1. We have previously conducted a rapid review of the literature to identify which symptoms and signs might differentiate mild and moderate from severe COVID-192. Since then, and as more data are being gathered, there is increasing evidence of a “long-tail” of COVID-19 illness, but limited information about the range and duration of symptoms experienced3 or longer term health complications. A community app developed at King’s College London, which tracks self-reported symptoms, has shown that about one in ten will be sick for three weeks or more (https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-long-term). Some individuals with COVID-19 have reported “fatigue, headaches and tingling nerves” that lasted months after symptom onset4. A recent longitudinal cohort of 143 patients followed after hospitalisation from COVID-19 in Italy reported that 87% had at least one ongoing symptom, most (55%) reporting three or more, at 60 day follow up. Fatigue (53%), dyspnoea (43%), joint pain (27%) and chest pain (22%) were the most common ongoing symptoms5, but there is a variety of other symptoms and complications that have been reported including neurocognitive difficulties, muscle pains and weakness, gastrointestinal upset, rashes, metabolic disruption, thromboembolic conditions and mental health conditions6. A prolonged course of illness has also been reported among people with mild COVID-19 who did not require hospitalisation3,7,8.
The evidence to date remains fragmented as to the onset of symptoms and clinical features, how long symptoms may last, how this relates to the severity of the initial illness, and further lasting impacts to health. A better understanding of patients’ projected recovery from COVID-19 is helpful to patients, healthcare professionals, policymakers and commissioners. The clinical management of persisting symptoms of COVID-19 has started to be addressed in the clinical literature6 and NHS England has issued guidance for the multisystem needs of patients recovering from COVID-199. Our findings could help identify people requiring additional rehabilitation services and, where necessary, specialist referral to establish a secondary cause of their symptoms. Our findings will also be relevant to organisations such as NHS England, which have recently launched an online COVID-19 rehab service supporting patients suffering long-term effects of the disease (https://www.yourcovidrecovery.nhs.uk/) or the British Society of Immunologists, which recently released a briefing note recommending research into the long-term immunological health consequences of COVID-1910.
The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence on the prevalence and duration of symptoms and clinical features of post-acute COVID-19 and its long-term complications. This will inform clinical and public health management, prevention and rehabilitation policies.
To address the aim of this study we will conduct a living systematic review (LSR). LSRs are used in areas where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may influence policy or practice decisions11. These are all features of COVID-19 research, where much about the long-term effects of the disease are still unknown and policy makers are calling for more evidence. The review will be initially updated monthly, with update cycles under continuous review as the pace of new evidence generated develops through the pandemic. We aim to continue to update the review for up to two years. Our study methodology has been developed and strengthened through consultation with Long Covid Support (a patient support network).
We will include studies that meet the follow criteria:
- Studies of patients with COVID-19 who have persistent mild, moderate or severe symptoms as defined by the article authors
- Studies following up with COVID-19 patients
- Peer reviewed articles published since 1st January 2020
- No restriction regarding country, setting or language
We will exclude:
A search of the following databases will be conducted: Pubmed and CINAHL through the EBSCO database host for general health peer-reviewed articles and Global Health for global peer-reviewed articles through the Ovid database host. In addition, we will search Cochrane for relevant systematic reviews and Google Scholar for grey literature including pre-prints. We will also look at the WHO Global Research Database on COVID-19 and LitCOVID as two databases that bring together evidence on COVID-19 from a worldwide dataset. Finally, we will contact experts in the field and use social media to identify relevant studies.
Data will be managed using the review software Rayyan12.
We will search using controlled subject headings and keywords of the following concepts: Terms related to 1) COVID-19 OR COVID OR SARS-CoV-2; 2) symptoms OR clinical features OR signs OR characteristics OR sequelae OR complications; 3) long-term OR post-acute OR long-tail OR persistent OR chronic COVID OR long COVID OR post discharge OR prolonged symptoms OR long haul. The search terms were piloted on Pubmed and CINAHL through the EBSCO database host the week starting 14th September 2020 to ensure that recent high profile research articles on long covid were included. No important studies were missed.
An example is shown below:
Initial screening of titles and abstracts as well as full text screening against the inclusion criteria will be done by two reviewers. Disagreements for inclusion will be resolved by consensus. Where disagreements cannot be resolved, a third researcher will review the papers to make the final decision.
We will be using the Hoy et al. checklist13 to critically appraise the studies included in the review.
The following information will be extracted from each study based on the extraction form used for our initial review2: study aim, country of study, setting, method, study design and population size and characteristics, types and frequency of symptoms reported, onset and duration of symptoms. Data extraction will be performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion and consensus.
We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the types of symptoms, their frequency and duration. We will perform subgroup analysis on the basis of age, sex, comorbidities and severity of the disease. The data will be presented as infographics to facilitate transcription to lay audiences.
This protocol report is structured according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement guidelines14, was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020211131, 25 September 2020). The protocol will be updated as we progress with the living review as and if needed. CS is the guarantor for this study.
Figshare: PRISMA-P checklist for “What are the long-term symptoms and complications of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review”. https://doi.org/10.25383/city.13187456.v115.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
No
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Epidemiology, meta-analyses, Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Social epidemiology systematic reviews
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 2 (revision) 27 Aug 21 |
read | read |
Version 1 14 Dec 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)