Prevalence of long-term effects in individuals diagnosed with COVID-19: a living systematic review

Francesca Reyes Domingo, Lisa A Waddell, Angela M. Cheung, Curtis L. Cooper, Veronica J. Belcourt, Alexandra M. E. Zuckermann, Tricia Corrin, Rukshanda Ahmad, Laura Boland, Claudie Laprise, Leanne Idzerda, Anam Khan, Alejandra Jaramillo Garcia
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.03.21258317

Abstract

Background Patients have described symptoms persisting or recurring for weeks after acute COVID-19 illness referred to as post COVID-19 conditions. The objective of this living systematic review is to document the prevalence of post COVID-19 conditions 4-12 weeks (short-term) and >12 weeks (long-term) after COVID-19 diagnosis.

Methods We conducted a systematic review of primary peer-reviewed published literature reporting on the prevalence of the symptoms, sequelae and difficulties conducting usual activities ≥4 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis. We adapted a previous search strategy used by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and updated it to search for new research published until January 15, 2021 in Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, and Cochrane Central. Two independent reviewers screened references; one reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty in the evidence while another verified them. Prevalence data from laboratory-confirmed individuals were meta-analyzed, where appropriate, using a random effects model and synthesized separately in the short- and long-term periods after COVID-19 diagnosis; data from clinically-diagnosed populations were synthesized narratively.

Results Of the 2807 unique citations, 36 observational studies met our inclusion criteria. Over 100 post COVID-19 conditions were reported in laboratory-confirmed individuals. Eighty-three percent (95%CI: 65-93%; low certainty) and 56% (95%CI: 34-75%; very low certainty) reported persistence or presence of one or more symptoms in the short- and long-term, respectively. The most prevalent symptoms in both periods included: fatigue, general pain or discomfort, sleep disturbances, shortness of breath and anxiety or depression (point estimates ranging from 22-51%; low to very low certainty).

Interpretation Our data indicate that a substantial proportion of individuals reported a variety of symptoms ≥4 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis. Due to low certainty in the evidence, further research is needed to determine the true burden of post COVID-19 conditions.

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in over 3 million deaths worldwide as of May 2021 (1). In Canada, COVID-19 has accounted for over 1.3 million cases and twenty-five thousand deaths as of May 2021 (2). The typical duration of acute COVID-19 illness is two to six weeks; however, some patients have described debilitating symptoms persisting or recurring for weeks or months after acute illness (3). In this review, we used the term “post COVID-19 conditions” to describe persistent symptoms; however, these are also referred to as long COVID, post-COVID conditions, chronic COVID syndrome and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) (4-7). Definitions of ‘long-term’ also vary from ≥4 to ≥12 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis (8-10). Affected patients are commonly referred to as “COVID-19 long-haulers” (11-13).

It’s been estimated that over one million people in each of the United States (14) and United Kingdom (15) suffer from post COVID-19 conditions. The burden of these conditions will likewise be great in Canada and will have serious ramifications on health care utilization and workforce productivity. A good understanding of the prevalence of these conditions, its effects on COVID-19 survivors, and its resolution over time is important to address this issue. Other reviews (8,16-18) are older, lack a systematic approach or have not accounted for the evidence quality. Therefore, the objective of this living systematic review is to document the prevalence of post COVID-19 conditions (4-12 and >12 weeks), including the frequency of symptoms, sequelae and difficulties individuals living with post COVID-19 conditions have conducting usual activities, according to a globally accepted standard of systematic review methodology.

Methods

We adhered to Cochrane methodology and the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines for this systematic review (19,20). The review team was multidisciplinary and included methodologists and subject matter experts currently treating patients with post COVID-19 conditions. We determined the review question and methodology a priori (protocol registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021231476) (21). This is the first publication of this living review that will be periodically updated as critical additions to the literature are published. More detailed methods and any associated files are provided in Supplementary File 1 – Detailed methodology.

Search strategy

We conducted a formative search and identified a systematic review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (10) that could be adapted and updated. We adapted the NICE search strategy (which included a search of relevant literature published between January 1st to October 21st, 2020) and used it to search for new research published between October 22, 2020 to January 15, 2021 in the following databases: Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central. All studies included in the NICE review and any French articles they excluded were eligible for inclusion. We conducted a complementary search for grey literature in January 2021 and any relevant literature that was eligible for inclusion.

Study selection and data collection process

We included primary studies published since January 1st, 2020 in English or French, which included 50 or more participants with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (termed “laboratory-confirmed”) or with COVID-19 clinically-diagnosed by a health professional (termed “clinically-diagnosed”), and reported the prevalence of long-term symptoms or sequelae 4 weeks or more from COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded pre-print and non-peer reviewed articles and primary studies that recruited participants specifically because they reported long-term effects 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis.

A priori, we developed title and abstract and full text screening forms and two data extraction forms that were piloted by all reviewers. Two reviewers screened citations and full texts independently. One reviewer extracted data which were verified by a second reviewer. Reviewers resolved conflicts through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. We defined several terms as follows: (a) time since COVID-19 diagnosis was used synonymously as time since symptom onset, positive laboratory result or diagnosis by a health professional and (b) outcomes measured between 4 and 12 weeks and more than 12 weeks since COVID-19 diagnosis were defined as short-term and long-term, respectively.

Outcomes

The main outcomes of interest were any symptom, sequelae or outcomes pertaining to difficulties conducting usual activities (i.e. functional outcomes) reported by individuals 4 or more weeks after a COVID-19 diagnosis, with key symptoms or sequelae of interest identified as the following: fatigue shortness of breath, neurocognitive impairment, pain (in the joints, chest or muscles), organ damage, dizziness, tachycardia, chest tightness or heaviness, olfactory and taste impairments and sleeping disturbances. Additional outcomes, such as those from diagnostic imaging or pulmonary function tests, which may often provide abnormal results despite resolution of patient symptoms were considered as outcomes of interest in the long-term only.

Evidence synthesis

Our primary synthesis focused on outcomes in individuals who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 to minimize likelihood of capturing long-term sequelae from unrelated conditions. We synthesized short- and long-term outcomes separately, and where multiple outcomes were available within a study, we used results from the longest follow-up time point. We conducted meta-analyses for outcomes with two or more studies using a random effects model, where appropriate. We determined, a priori, potential sub-group analyses if data were available, and we considered these for some key outcomes to explore reasons for high heterogeneity across studies. We performed the analyses using R statistical software version 4.0.4 (22), with package metafor version 2.4-0 (23) and package meta version 4.18-0 (24). We presented pooled results in forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted additional narrative syntheses for the outcomes in the clinically-diagnosed population but we did not explore heterogeneity across studies.

Assessing risk of bias and certainty in the evidence

We used a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies (25) to assess risk of bias for each study (questions 1, 2 and 9) and for each outcome reported by the study (questions 6, 7 and 8). We omitted questions 3-5 to avoid duplication with the criteria used to assess the certainty of the evidence. We divided the questions into three domains (participants, outcome measures and statistics) and rated studies as having low risk of bias if sufficient criteria were met for all three domains. We assessed certainty in the body of evidence for select outcomes (i.e. key symptoms or sequelae or those found to be most prevalent) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach (26). We adapted the GRADE framework for assessment of incidence estimates in the context of prognostic studies to assess prevalence estimates (27). After piloting the tools, one reviewer assessed and graded the evidence which was verified by a second reviewer. Reviewers resolved conflicts through consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.

Results

Study Selection

We found 2807 unique citations and 390 met criteria for full-text screening (Figure 1). Thirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria; 28 included prevalence data for individuals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (28-55) and 8 included prevalence data for individuals who were clinically-diagnosed with COVID-19 (56-63).

Figure 1:
Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram of articles through the systematic review process

Prevalence in individuals who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19

Study Characteristics

Study characteristics from 28 studies on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases are shown in Table 1. All studies were observational (cohort or cross-sectional) and included between 58 and 1733 individuals, with the majority of studies having less than 200 participants (21/28). The majority were conducted in Europe (16/28), with the remaining in Asia (6/28), North America (3/28 of which 1 was in Canada) and others (3/28). More than half of the studies only recruited adult participants (17/28), 10/28 did not restrict recruitment by age, and 1/28 studies focused on a pediatric sample. Forty-three percent of studies (12/28) only recruited participants who were hospitalized or admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to COVID-19. Seventy-nine percent (22/28) of studies measured short-term outcomes (i.e., between 4-12 weeks from COVID-19 diagnosis) and 21% (6/28) measured outcomes beyond 12 weeks (5/6 measured outcomes up to 6 months).

View this table:
Table 1: Characteristics of Included Studies with Laboratory-Confirmed Participants

Risk of Bias and certainty in the evidence

Of the 28 studies, we assessed 19 to be at moderate risk of bias and nine to be at high risk of bias [supplementary tables – RoB assessments]. We found that the most common sources of potential biases were from participant selection (i.e. convenience samples or study population was not representative of the target population) and poor objectivity/validity of outcome measurement (i.e. many outcomes were self-reported or obtained using non-validated measures). We assessed certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for 63 key outcomes; there was moderate certainty in 5% (3/63), low certainty in 40% (25/63) and very low certainty in 55% (35/63) of these key outcomes. (Table 2, Supplementary tables – GRADE certainty in the evidence)

View this table:
Table 2. Prevalence of various symptoms, sequelae and difficulties conducting usual activities post-COVID-19 infection in laboratory-confirmed individuals

Prevalence of symptoms, sequelae and difficulties conducting usual activities

Over 100 symptoms, sequelae or difficulties conducting usual activities were reported (Table 2).

Short-term (4-12 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis)

Approximately 4 in 5 individuals (83%, 95% CI: 65-93%, low certainty) reported the persistence or presence of one or more symptoms in the short-term. The most prevalent symptoms in the short-term were fatigue (51%, 95% CI: 39-64%, low certainty), general pain or discomfort (40%, 95% CI: 24-58%, low certainty), shortness of breath (38%, 95% CI: 27-51%, very low certainty), sleep disturbances (36%, 95% CI: 10-74%, low certainty), anxiety (29%, 95% CI: 16-48%, very low certainty) and cough (28%, 95% CI: 22-35%, low certainty). Fifty-two percent of individuals (95% CI: 35-68%, low certainty) reported feeling ill or not back to full health in the short-term.

Long-term (>12 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis)

Approximately 3 in 5 individuals (56%, 95% CI: 34-75%, very low certainty) reported persistence or presence of one or more symptoms in the long-term. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (47%, 95% CI: 27-68%, very low certainty), general pain or discomfort (27%, 95% CI: 25-29%, low certainty) and sleep disturbances (26%, 95% CI: 24-29%, low certainty). The following symptoms had similar prevalence of 22%-23% (low to very low certainty): anxiety or depression, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), shortness of breath and hair fall/loss. The most prevalent complication from acute COVID-19 was unresolved impaired pulmonary function (42%, 95%CI: 25-29%, very low certainty).

Investigations into potential reasons for heterogeneity

Based on our sub-group analyses for fatigue and shortness of breath, stratifying results by level of care received during the acute stage of COVID-19 infection (i.e. admitted to ICU, hospitalized, non-hospitalized), which was used as a proxy for severity of COVID-19 (i.e. such that patients with more severe COVID-19 were more likely to require hospitalized care), appeared to explain some of the heterogeneity (Figure 2). However, we still observed moderate to high heterogeneity within some of the sub-groups, particularly among hospitalized populations. Differences in how outcomes were measured (i.e. self-reported versus validated tests) and the thresholds used by each study to indicate an adverse outcome (e.g. binary versus a multi-point scale) may also have contributed to differences in prevalence estimates across studies (analyses not shown). In addition, measurement of outcomes at different points or periods of follow-up within the short or long-term (e.g. outcomes measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks reported together in the short-term) may also have contributed to differences in prevalence estimates across studies; however, there were insufficient data to conduct subgroup analyses at each separate time point. Despite methodological and clinical variability, I2 was low to moderate in 44% of the pooled outcomes. [supplementary figures – all forest plots]

Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Prevalence (proportion of study sample) of (a) fatigue and (b) shortness of breath, at 4-12 weeks and >12 weeks after COVID-19 diagnosis and by level of care received at the acute stage of COVID-19 infection.

Note that level of care may be considered a proxy for severity of COVID-19 (i.e., such that patients with more severe COVID-19 were more likely to require hospitalized care).

Prevalence in populations who had clinically-diagnosed COVID-19

The characteristics of the eight included studies with prevalence data for individuals who had clinically-diagnosed COVID-19 are presented in supplementary tables (Table S1). All but one study (7/8) recruited participants who were hospitalized for COVID-19 and half were conducted in Europe (4/8). One of eight studies reported on short-term outcomes only, 2/8 reported on both short- and long-term outcomes and 5/8 reported on long-term outcomes only. Five of eight studies were assessed to be at moderate risk of bias while 3/8 were at high risk of bias. [supplementary tables – RoB assessments]

Sixty-four outcomes were reported in the clinically diagnosed population. (supplementary Table S4)

Interpretation

In this systematic review, most laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients continued to experience one or more symptoms in the short- (83%) and long-term (56%) after diagnosis. Although the most commonly reported symptoms included fatigue, general pain or discomfort, sleep disturbances, shortness of breath and mental health symptoms such as anxiety and depression, many other mild to severe and debilitating symptoms were experienced by a large proportion of convalescent COVID-19 cases. Consequently, roughly 30% and 10% of individuals were unable to return to work in the short- and long-term following COVID-19 diagnosis, respectively. However, due to low certainty in the evidence, true clarity around the burden of post COVID-19 conditions will require further work to untangle the sequelae caused directly by COVID-19 infection from those arising from related factors such as extensive hospital care due to severe illness. The prevalence and complex nature of these conditions will require multi-disciplinary approaches in developing appropriate diagnostic models and tools, patient care pathways, and support structures to address the needs of those suffering from post COVID-19 conditions.

Several systematic reviews (64,65) and rapid reviews (16,17) evaluating the long-term effects of COVID-19 similarly reported fatigue, shortness of breath, sleeping disorders, anxiety and smell and taste abnormalities as the most frequently reported symptoms. The prevalence estimates for the various symptoms and sequelae reported in these reviews differed slightly from ours; these discrepancies may in part be explained by methodological differences. To minimize heterogeneity in the outcomes, and to minimize bias in capturing symptoms that may be due to other causes, we chose to synthesize prevalence data separately for laboratory-confirmed and clinically-diagnosed populations. We consulted with clinical experts to determine which outcomes could be grouped together and/or statistically combined through meta-analyses, and where appropriate, we pooled outcomes to provide an indication of the precision of the estimate across studies. Finally, we critically assessed each study for risk of bias and we provided certainty in the evidence for select outcomes in our review using the GRADE approach which will provide clinicians and policy-makers with a sense of how much value can be placed on the results of this review considering the limitations of the data available.

Some limitations should be considered including the possible omission of relevant studies. We adapted and updated our search based on the evidence review conducted by NICE in October 2020; the only studies that were eligible for inclusion in our review that were published prior to October 2020 were studies that were included in the NICE review, or French–language studies that were excluded from that review (10). To minimize the potential for missing relevant studies, we used a peer-reviewed search strategy, supplemented with grey-literature searches, and ensured two reviewers agreed prior to excluding any studies. Another limitation is the inclusion of only English and French articles that may have introduced a language bias, however only 17 potentially relevant articles were excluded on the basis of language. Finally, although we had consulted with GRADE experts on our modified process for assessing evidence on prevalence using the GRADE approach, this process has yet to be validated.

Evidence gaps and Research Priorities

There were evidence gaps or limited data for many outcomes in this systematic review. The majority of studies in this review included adults or individuals who were hospitalized or treated for moderate-to-severe COVID-19; therefore, the prevalence of long-term effects in children, in individuals who were asymptomatic or who presented with mild COVID-19 symptoms in the acute stage may not be sufficiently represented in our results. We found few studies reporting on long-term effects beyond 12 weeks post-infection. Many of the studies included in our review had small sample sizes (<200 participants) or were at risk of bias due to the selection of participants and outcome measures used. Given the lack of contemporaneous control groups, it was not possible to determine whether symptoms were due to COVID-19; other possible contributing factors could include the presence of pre-existing symptoms or conditions prior to COVID-19 infection, effects of treatment received or effects of being hospitalized or admitted to the ICU, and effects due to the pandemic itself (e.g., barriers to seeking treatment, psychosocial impacts).

This research area is rapidly evolving with new evidence, thus it is expected that future research will reduce the heterogeneity in the results and further refine the understanding of post COVID-19 conditions. Research investigating evidence gaps, including the prevalence of long-term effects in subsets of the population (i.e. children, indigenous and other racialized populations, those with underlying conditions), in those who presented with mild symptoms or asymptomatic infections in the acute phase, and symptoms and sequelae beyond 6 months post-infection, are needed to determine how post COVID-19 conditions differ across populations and how they can change or resolve over time. Confidence in the review findings would be improved by studies designed to minimize bias in participant selection and that use validated measures and tools to assess symptoms and sequelae. We aim to update our findings regularly as new evidence arises, including an update in the fall of 2021.

Health policy Implications

Understanding the burden and characteristics of post COVID-19 conditions is a good starting point for planning and development of mitigation strategies to support those in need of rehabilitation, medical care and other community resources for recovery after COVID-19 infection. This evidence is expected to support national and international public health organizations who are in the process of planning for and developing supportive measures for patients with post COVID-19 conditions. Such efforts include establishing case definitions for surveillance and data collection networks or systems, developing clinical practice and public health guidelines, innovative patient care pathways, education materials for patients and healthcare professionals, and creating appropriate services and social constructs to support COVID-19 survivors for a full recovery (66).

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of individuals reported a variety of symptoms and sequelae 4 weeks or more after COVID-19 diagnosis. These physical and mental health symptoms have led to difficulties in conducting usual activities and result in diminished quality of life among COVID-19 survivors. This review provides a snap shot of symptoms presenting in COVID-19 survivors in the months after diagnosis. The data indicate that many are experiencing post COVID-19 conditions, the range and impact of which are broad and will require a multidisciplinary approach to develop appropriate diagnostics, clinical practice and public health guidelines, and patient care pathways. Research on post COVID-19 conditions is rapidly being produced and work is on-going to develop definitions which will lead to better and more refined estimates and understanding of the burden of post COVID-19 conditions, the social and economic impacts and resources needed to support a large number of survivors.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, FRD, upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following individuals: Dr. Adrienne Stevens for providing methodological support and conducting risk of bias assessments; Dr. Adrienne Stevens and Dr. Zachary Munn for their guidance in the application of risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies and modified GRADE for prevalence; Nana Amankwah, Judy Niles and Janet-Leigh Potvin from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) for helping with screening and data extraction; Dr. Muhammad Mullah from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) for providing guidance on the meta-analyses.

AM Cheung is partially supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Musculoskeletal and Postmenopausal Health as well as the KY and Betty Ho Chair in Integrative Medicine at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Belcourt is a CADTH employee - the current work was unrelated to her employment, and CADTH had no role in the funding, design, or oversight of the work reported.

Footnotes

  • Funding Statement: Funding for the conduct of this review is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

  • Competing interests: none

References

  1. (1).↵
    Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. COVID-19 Dashboard. 2021; Available at: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html. Accessed May, 2021.
  2. (2).↵
    Government of Canada. COVID-19 daily epidemiology update. 2021; Available at: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-summary-covid-19-cases.html?redir=1. Accessed May, 2021.
  3. (3).↵
    World Health Organization. Ce que nous savons sur les effets à long terme de la COVID-19. 2020; Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-comms-updates/update-36-long-term-symptoms.pdf?sfvrsn=5d3789a6_2. Accessed April, 2021.
  4. (4).↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Post-COVID Conditions. 2021; Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html. Accessed May, 2021.
  5. (5).
    Vehar S, Boushra M, Ntiamoah P, Biehl M. Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Caring for the ‘long-haulers’. Cleve Clin J Med 2021 May 3;88(5):267–272.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. (6).
    Venkatesan P. NICE guideline on long COVID. Lancet Respir Med 2021 Feb;9(2):129-2600(21)00031-X. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
    OpenUrl
  7. (7).↵
    World Health Organization. Update on Clinical long-term effects of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Update 54). 2021; Available at: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/risk-comms-updates/update54_clinical_long_term_effects.pdf?sfvrsn=3e63eee5_8. Accessed May, 2021.
  8. (8).↵
    Nalbandian A, Sehgal K, Gupta A, Madhavan MV, McGroder C, Stevens JS, et al. Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Nat Med 2021 Apr;27(4):601–615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. (9).
    Greenhalgh T, Knight M, A’Court C, Buxton M, Husain L. Management of post-acute covid-19 in primary care. BMJ 2020 Aug 11;370:m3026.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. (10).↵
    National Institute for Health and,Care Excellence, Practitioners RCoG, Scotland HI. COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19. NICE Guidelines 2020(18):1–35.
  11. (11).↵
    Baig AM. Chronic COVID syndrome: Need for an appropriate medical terminology for long-COVID and COVID long-haulers. Journal of medical virology 2020;93(5):2555–2556.
    OpenUrl
  12. (12).
    Callard F, Perego E. How and why patients made Long Covid. Social science & medicine 2021;268.
  13. (13).↵
    Komaroff A. The tragedy of long COVID. 2020; Available at: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-tragedy-of-the-post-covid-long-haulers-2020101521173. Accessed April/24, 2021.
  14. (14).↵
    Berger Z, Altiery DE Jesus V, Assoumou SA, Greenhalgh T. Long COVID and Health Inequities: The Role of Primary Care. Milbank Q 2021 Mar 30.
  15. (15).↵
    Office for National Statistics. Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK. 2021; Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/releases/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk. Accessed April/24, 2021.
  16. (16).↵
    Himmels JPW, Qureshi SA, Brurberg KG, Gravningen KM. COVID-19: Long-term effects of covid-19. Rapid review. [Langvarige effekter av covid-19. Hurtigoversikt 2021]. Norwegian Institute of Public Health 2021.
  17. (17).↵
    Iwu CJ, Iwu CD, Wiysonge CS. The occurrence of long COVID: a rapid review. Pan Afr Med J 2021 Jan 20;38:65.
    OpenUrl
  18. (18).↵
    Sudre CH, Murray B, Varsavsky T, Graham MS, Penfold RS, Bowyer RC, et al. Attributes and predictors of long COVID. Nature medicine 2021;27:626.
    OpenUrl
  19. (19).↵
    Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). : Cochrane; 2021.
  20. (20).↵
    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021 Feb 9;134:103–112.
    OpenUrl
  21. (21).↵
    Reyes Domingo F, Jaramillo Garcia A, Boland L, Laprise C, Waddell L, Corrin T, et al. Prevalence of long-term symptoms in individuals diagnosed with COVID-19: A rapid review (CRD42021231476). PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews 2021.
  22. (22).↵
    R CT. R Studio. 2013.
  23. (23).↵
    Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. Journal of Statistical Software 2010;36(3).
  24. (24).↵
    Schwarzer G. General Package for Meta-Analysis. 2021; Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/meta/meta.pdf. Accessed April, 2021.
  25. (25).↵
    1. Aromataris E,
    2. Munn Z, editors
    Munn Z, Moola S, Lisy K, Riitano D, Tufanaru C. Chapter 5: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. : JBI; 2017.
  26. (26).↵
    Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011 04;64(4):401–406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. (27).↵
    Iorio A, Spencer FA, Falavigna M, Alba C, Lang E, Burnand B, et al. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients. BMJ 2015 03;350:h870–h870.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. (28).↵
    Akter F., Mannan A., Mehedi H.M.H., Rob M.A., Ahmed S., Salauddin A., et al. Clinical characteristics and short term outcomes after recovery from COVID-19 in patients with and without diabetes in Bangladesh. Diabetes Metab Syndr Clin Res Rev 2020;14(6):2031–2038.
    OpenUrl
  29. (29).
    Alharthy A., Abuhamdah M., Balhamar A., Faqihi F., Nasim N., Ahmad S., et al. Residual Lung Injury in Patients Recovering From COVID-19 Critical Illness: A Prospective Longitudinal Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound Study. J Ultrasound Med 2020.
  30. (30).
    Boscolo-Rizzo P, Borsetto D, Fabbris C, Spinato G, Frezza D, Menegaldo A, et al. Evolution of Altered Sense of Smell or Taste in Patients with Mildly Symptomatic COVID-19; 32614442. JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 2020;146(8):1–5.
    OpenUrl
  31. (31).
    Bulgurcu S., Oztutgan T., Baz E., Yonem A., Koc N.G., Erkul E., et al. Assessment of Smell and Taste Disorders in COVID-19: A Cross-sectional Study. J Craniofac Surg 2020.
  32. (32).
    Carvalho-Schneider C., Laurent E., Lemaignen A., Beaufils E., Bourbao-Tournois C., Laribi S., et al. Follow-up of adults with noncritical COVID-19 two months after symptom onset. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020.
  33. (33).
    Chiesa-Estomba C.M., Lechien J.R., Radulesco T., Michel J., Sowerby L.J., Hopkins C., et al. Patterns of smell recovery in 751 patients affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. Eur J Neurol 2020;27(11):2318–2321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. (34).
    D’Cruz, R. F., Waller, M. D., Perrin, F., Periselneris, J., Norton, S., Smith, L. J., Patrick, T., Walder, D., Heitmann, A., Lee, K., Madula, R., McNulty, W., Macedo, P., Lyall, R., Warwick, G., Galloway, J. B., Birring, S. S., Patel, A., Patel, I., & Jolley, C. J. Chest radiography is a poor predictor of respiratory symptoms and functional impairment in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.. ERJ Open Research 2021;7(1).
  35. (35).
    Gambini G., Savastano M.C., Savastano A., De Vico U., Crincoli E., Cozzupoli M.G., et al. Ocular surface impairment after COVID-19: a cohort study. Cornea 2020.
  36. (36).
    Halpin SJ, McIvor C, Whyatt G, Adams A, Harvey O, McLean L, et al. Postdischarge symptoms and rehabilitation needs in survivors of COVID-19 infection: A cross-sectional evaluation. J Med Virol 2021;93(2):1013–1022.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. (37).
    Horn M, Wathelet M, Fovet T, Amad A, Vuotto F, Faure K, et al. Is COVID-19 Associated With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder? J Clin Psychiatry 2020;82(1).
  38. (38).
    Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021.
  39. (39).
    Jacobs L.G., Paleoudis E.G., Bari D.L.-D., Nyirenda T., Friedman T., Gupta A., et al. Persistence of symptoms and quality of life at 35 days after hospitalization for COVID-19 infection. PLoS ONE 2020;15(12):e0243882.
    OpenUrl
  40. (40).
    Khasawneh L., Al-Omar K., Tarifi A.A., Shaout D.M.K., Abu-Ghazal S.Y.A., Alfazza’A T.S.M. The correlation between BMI and COVID-19 outcomes. Syst Rev Pharm 2020;11(6):1236–1239.
    OpenUrl
  41. (41).
    Konstantinidis I., Delides A., Tsakiropoulou E., Maragoudakis P., Sapounas S., Tsiodras S. Short-Term Follow-Up of Self-Isolated COVID-19 Patients with Smell and Taste Dysfunction in Greece: Two Phenotypes of Recovery. ORL 2020;82(6):295–303.
    OpenUrl
  42. (42).
    Landi F, Carfì A, Benvenuto F, Brandi V, Ciciarello F, Lo Monaco MR, et al. Predictive Factors for a New Positive Nasopharyngeal Swab Among Patients Recovered From COVID-19; 33041095. Am J Prev Med 2021;60(1):13–19.
    OpenUrl
  43. (43).
    Liang L., Yang B., Jiang N., Fu W., He X., Zhou Y., et al. Three-month Follow-up Study of Survivors of Coronavirus Disease 2019 after Discharge. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35(47):e418.
    OpenUrl
  44. (44).
    Mandal S., Barnett J., Brill S.E., Brown J.S., Denneny E.K., Hare S.S., et al. ‘Long-COVID’: A cross-sectional study of persisting symptoms, biomarker and imaging abnormalities following hospitalisation for COVID-19. Thorax 2020:2020-215818.
  45. (45).
    Otte M.S., Eckel H.N.C., Poluschkin L., Klussmann J.P., Luers J.C. Olfactory dysfunction in patients after recovering from COVID-19. Acta Otolaryngol 2020;140(12):1032–1035.
    OpenUrl
  46. (46).
    Petersen M.S., Kristiansen M.F., Hanusson K.D., Danielsen M.E., A Steig B, Gaini S., et al. Long COVID in the Faroe Islands - a longitudinal study among non-hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 2020.
  47. (47).
    Raman B., Cassar M.P., Tunnicliffe E.M., Filippini N., Griffanti L., Alfaro-Almagro F., et al. Medium-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on multiple vital organs, exercise capacity, cognition, quality of life and mental health, post-hospital discharge. EClinicalMedicine 2021;31:100683.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. (48).
    Rusetsky Y, Meytel I, Mokoyan Z, Fisenko A, Babayan A, Malyavina U. Smell status in children infected with SARS-CoV-2. Laryngoscope 2021.
  49. (49).
    Shah A.S., Wong A.W., Hague C.J., Murphy D.T., Johnston J.C., Ryerson C.J., et al. A prospective study of 12-week respiratory outcomes in COVID-19-related hospitalisations. Thorax 2020 216308.
  50. (50).
    Stavem K., Ghanima W., Olsen M.K., Gilboe H.M., Einvik G. Persistent symptoms 1.5-6 months after COVID-19 in non-hospitalised subjects: A population-based cohort study. Thorax 2020 216377.
  51. (51).
    Townsend L., Dyer A.H., Jones K., Dunne J., Mooney A., Gaffney F., et al. Persistent fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 infection is common and independent of severity of initial infection. PLoS ONE 2020;15(11):e0240784.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. (52).
    Townsend L, Dowds J, O’Brien K, Sheill G, Dyer AH, O’Kelly B, et al. Persistent Poor Health Post-COVID-19 Is Not Associated with Respiratory Complications or Initial Disease Severity. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2021.
  53. (53).
    Vaira L.A., Hopkins C., Petrocelli M., Lechien J.R., Chiesa-Estomba C.M., Salzano G., et al. Smell and taste recovery in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: A 60-day objective and prospective study. J Laryngol Otol 2020;134(8):703–709.
    OpenUrl
  54. (54).
    Wang Y., Chen L., Wu T., Shi H., Li Q., Jiang H., et al. Impact of Covid-19 in pregnancy on mother’s psychological status and infant’s neurobehavioral development: a longitudinal cohort study in China. BMC Med 2020;18(1):347.
    OpenUrl
  55. (55).↵
    Weerahandi H, Hochman KA, Simon E, Blaum C, Chodosh J, Duan E, et al. Post-Discharge Health Status and Symptoms in Patients with Severe COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med 2021.
  56. (56).↵
    Hittesdorf E., Panzer O., Wang D., Stevens J.S., Hastie J., Jordan D.A., et al. Mortality and renal outcomes of patients with severe COVID-19 treated in a provisional intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2021;62:172–175.
    OpenUrl
  57. (57).
    Lerum T.V., Aalokken T.M., Bronstad E., Aarli B., Ikdahl E., Lund K.M.A., et al. Dyspnoea, lung function and CT findings three months after hospital admission for COVID-19. Eur Respir J 2020.
  58. (58).
    Arnold D.T., Hamilton F.W., Milne A., Morley A.J., Viner J., Attwood M., et al. Patient outcomes after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and implications for follow-up: Results from a prospective UK cohort. Thorax 2020:216086.
  59. (59).
    van den Borst B., Peters J.B., Brink M., Schoon Y., Bleeker-Rovers C.P., Schers H., et al. Comprehensive health assessment three months after recovery from acute COVID-19. Clin Infect Dis 2020.
  60. (60).
    Miyazato Y, Morioka S, Tsuzuki S, Akashi M, Osanai Y, Tanaka K, et al. Prolonged and Late-Onset Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019. Open forum infect dis 2020;7(11):ofaa507.
    OpenUrl
  61. (61).
    Xiong Q., Xu M., Li J., Liu Y., Zhang J., Xu Y., et al. Clinical sequelae of COVID-19 survivors in Wuhan, China: a single-centre longitudinal study. Clin Microbiol Infect 2021;27(1):89–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. (62).
    Guler SA, Ebner L, Beigelman C, Bridevaux P, Brutsche M, Clarenbach C, et al. Pulmonary function and radiological features four months after COVID-19: first results from the national prospective observational Swiss COVID-19 lung study. Eur Respir J 2021.
  63. (63).↵
    Tomasoni D, Bai F, Castoldi R, Barbanotti D, Falcinella C, Mulè G, et al. Anxiety and depression symptoms after virological clearance of COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Milan, Italy; 32841387. J Med Virol 2021;93(2):1175–1179.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. (64).↵
    Lopez-Leon S, Wegman-Ostrosky T, Perelman C, Sepulveda R, Rebolledo PA, Cuapio A, et al. More than 50 Long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv 2021 Jan 30.
  65. (65).↵
    Michelen M, Manoharan L, Elkheir N, Cheng V, Dagens D, Hastie C, et al. Characterising long-term covid-19: a rapid living systematic review. medRxiv 2020.
  66. (66).↵
    Rajan S, Khunti K, Alwan N, Steves C, MacDermott N, Morsella A, et al. Policy Brief 39 - In the wake of the pandemic - Preparing for Long COVID. 2021.
Back to top
Posted June 06, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Prevalence of long-term effects in individuals diagnosed with COVID-19: a living systematic review
Francesca Reyes Domingo, Lisa A Waddell, Angela M. Cheung, Curtis L. Cooper, Veronica J. Belcourt, Alexandra M. E. Zuckermann, Tricia Corrin, Rukshanda Ahmad, Laura Boland, Claudie Laprise, Leanne Idzerda, Anam Khan, Alejandra Jaramillo Garcia
medRxiv 2021.06.03.21258317; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.03.21258317
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area