More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AbstractCOVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Download Full-text

More Than 50 Long-Term Effects of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-266574/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sandra Lopez-Leon ◽

Talia Wegman-Ostrosky ◽

Carol Perelman ◽

Rosalinda Sepulveda ◽

Paulina Rebolledo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Original Data ◽

Long Term Effects ◽

Pooled Prevalence ◽

Attention Disorder ◽

Initial Recovery ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background. COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery, which has come to be called Long-COVID or COVID long-haulers. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing long-term effects of COVID-19 and estimates the prevalence of each symptom, sign, or laboratory parameter of patients at a post-COVID-19 stage. Methods. LitCOVID (PubMed and Medline) and Embase were searched by two independent researchers. All articles with original data for detecting long-term COVID-19 published before 1st of January 2021 and with a minimum of 100 patients were included. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewers and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, although the study protocol was not registered. Results. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. The age of the study participants ranged between 17 and 87 years. It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). All meta-analyses showed medium (n=2) to high heterogeneity (n=13). Conclusions. In order to have a better understanding, future studies need to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, the severity of COVID-19 (ranging from asymptomatic to severe), and duration of each symptom. From the clinical perspective, multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Download Full-text

More than 50 Long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.1101/2021.01.27.21250617 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sandra Lopez-Leon ◽

Talia Wegman-Ostrosky ◽

Carol Perelman ◽

Rosalinda Sepulveda ◽

Paulina A Rebolledo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Original Data ◽

Long Term Effects ◽

Pooled Prevalence ◽

Attention Disorder ◽

Initial Recovery ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTCOVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery, which has come to be called Long-COVID or COVID long-haulers. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing long-term effects of COVID-19 and estimates the prevalence of each symptom, sign, or laboratory parameter of patients at a post-COVID-19 stage. LitCOVID (PubMed and Medline) and Embase were searched by two independent researchers. All articles with original data for detecting long-term COVID-19 published before 1st of January 2021 and with a minimum of 100 patients were included. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewers and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, although the study protocol was not registered. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. The age of the study participants ranged between 17 and 87 years. It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). All meta-analyses showed medium (n=2) to high heterogeneity (n=13). In order to have a better understanding, future studies need to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, severity of COVID-19 (ranging from asymptomatic to severe), and duration of each symptom. From the clinical perspective, multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Download Full-text

Immediate and long-term effects of mechanical loading on Achilles tendon volume: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Biomechanics ◽

10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110289 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 118 ◽

pp. 110289

Author(s):

Eman Merza ◽

Stephen Pearson ◽

Glen Lichtwark ◽

Meg Ollason ◽

Peter Malliaras

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Achilles Tendon ◽

Mechanical Loading ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Long Term Effects

Download Full-text

Prevalence, main serovars, and antimicrobial resistance profiles of Non-typhoidal Salmonella in poultry samples from the Americas: A systematic review and meta-analysis

10.22541/au.163253387.70584910/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Daniel Diaz ◽

Pavel Eduardo Hernandez-Carreño ◽

Diana Zuleika Velazquez ◽

Miguel Angel Chaidez-Ibarra ◽

Arnulfo Montero-Pardo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Antimicrobial Resistance ◽

Environmental Samples ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

National Level ◽

Production Chain ◽

National Differences ◽

Pooled Prevalence ◽

The Usa ◽

Meta Analyses

Poultry and poultry-derived products such as meat and eggs are among the main sources of non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) transmission to the human. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and used random-effects meta-analyses to 1) estimate the prevalence of NTS in poultry samples from birds, products and subproducts, and environmental samples, 2) examine the diversity and frequency of their serovars, and 3) estimate the prevalence and profiles of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in NTS isolates reported in studies from the Americas. We included 157 studies from 15 countries comprising 261,408 poultry samples and estimated an overall pooled prevalence of 17.9% (95% CI: 10.8–26.3) in birds, 21.8% (17.7–26.1) in products and subproducts, and 29.5% (24.2–35.1) in environmental samples. At the national level, the prevalence of NTS was heterogenous across countries with the highest values in Mexico, the USA, and Canada. In total, 131 serovars were identified from 13,388 isolates, Heidelberg, Kentucky, Enteritidis, and Typhimurium were the most prevalent in the overall top 10 ranking (range 6.5–20.8%). At the national level, Enteritidis and Typhimurium were identified in most of the countries, though with national differences in their ranks. The prevalence of AMR increased from 24.1% for 1 antibiotic, to 36.2% for 2-3 antibiotics, and 49.6% for ≥ 4 antibiotics. Kentucky, Heidelberg, Typhimurium, and Enteritidis were the serovars with the highest prevalence of AMR and tetracycline, ampicillin, streptomycin, ceftiofur, and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid were the top five antibiotics to which NTS isolates were resistant. In conclusion, NTS was distributed through the avian production chain with high and heterogenous values of prevalence in poultry samples. Besides, there were distinctive patterns of serovars distribution across countries and an alarming prevalence of AMR among zoonotic serovars.

Download Full-text

Prevalence of and risk factors for Plasmodium spp. co-infection with hepatitis B virus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Malaria Journal ◽

10.1186/s12936-020-03428-w ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Kwuntida Uthaisar Kotepui ◽

Manas Kotepui

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Hepatitis B Virus ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Infection Group ◽

Pooled Prevalence ◽

B Virus ◽

The Difference ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Plasmodium spp. and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are among the most common infectious diseases in underdeveloped countries. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection in people living in endemic areas of both diseases and to assess the risk factors related to this co-infection. Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Observational cross-sectional studies and retrospective studies assessing the prevalence of Plasmodium species and HBV co-infection were examined. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a tool for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses, and heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed with Cochran's Q test and the I2 (inconsistency) statistic. The pooled prevalence of the co-infection and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the random-effects model, depending on the amount of heterogeneity there was among the included studies. The pooled odds ratio (OR) represented the difference in qualitative variables, whereas the pooled mean difference (MD) represented the difference in quantitative variables. Meta-analyses of the potential risk factors for Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection, including patient age and gender, were identified and represented as pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs. Publication bias among the included studies was assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot to search for asymmetry. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence estimate of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection was 6% (95% CI 4–7%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I2: 95.8%), with prevalences of 10% in Gambia (95% CI: 8–12%, weight: 4.95%), 8% in Italy (95% CI 5–12%, weight: 3.8%), 7% in Nigeria (95% CI 4–10%, weight: 53.5%), and 4% in Brazil (95% CI 2–5%, weight: 19.9%). The pooled prevalence estimate of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection was higher in studies published before 2015 (7%, 95% CI 4–9%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I2: 96%) than in those published since 2015 (3%, 95% CI 1–5%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I2: 81.3%). No difference in age and risk of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group was found between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection and the Plasmodium monoinfection group (p: 0.48, OR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.60–2.96). No difference in gender and risk of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group was found between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection and HBV co-infection group and the Plasmodium monoinfection group (p: 0.09, OR: 2.79, 95% CI 0.86–9.10). No differences in mean aspartate aminotransferase (AST), mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT), or mean total bilirubin levels were found (p > 0.05) between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group and the Plasmodium monoinfection group. Conclusions The present study revealed the prevalence of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection, which will help in understanding co-infection and designing treatment strategies. Future studies assessing the interaction between Plasmodium spp. and HBV are recommended.

Download Full-text

Prevalence of bipolar disorder in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence-Based Mental Health ◽

10.1136/ebmental-2020-300207 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. ebmental-2020-300207

Author(s):

Boney Joseph ◽

Aiswarya L Nandakumar ◽

Ahmed T Ahmed ◽

Neethu Gopal ◽

M Hassan Murad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Sclerosis ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Bipolar Disorder ◽

Demyelinating Disease ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Lifetime Prevalence ◽

Ovid Medline ◽

Pooled Prevalence

BackgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disabling, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system and is often associated with psychiatric comorbidities. Some studies suggest increased prevalence of bipolar disorder (BD) in MS.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the prevalence of BD in adults with MS.MethodsWe registered this review with PROSPERO and searched electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Central, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus) for eligible studies from earliest inception to October 2020. Prevalence data of BD in adult patients with MS were extracted. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects model.FindingsOf the 802 articles that were screened, 23 studies enrolling a total of 68 796 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence rate of BD in patients with MS was 2.95% (95% CI 2.12% to 4.09%) with higher prevalence in the Americas versus Europe. The lifetime prevalence of BD was 8.4% in patients with MS. Subgroup analysis showed a higher prevalence of BD in MS in females (7.03%) than in males (5.64%), which did not reach statistical significance (p=0.53).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests a high lifetime prevalence of BD in patients with MS. Patients with MS should be routinely screened for BD. Further assessment of bipolar comorbidity in MS through prospective studies may help in developing effective management strategies and may improve treatment outcomes in patients with MS.

Download Full-text