key: cord-0959959-8g589uzc
authors: Jennings, G.; Monaghan, A.; Xue, F.; Mockler, D.; Romero-Ortuno, R.
title: A systematic review of persistent symptoms and residual abnormal functioning following acute COVID-19: Ongoing symptomatic phase vs. post-COVID-19 syndrome
date: 2021-06-30
journal: nan
DOI: 10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372
sha: 64379bd1fd26a7000ffffe4abbc9a85892637f33
doc_id: 959959
cord_uid: 8g589uzc

Objective | To compare the two phases of long COVID, namely ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 (OSC; signs and symptoms from 4 to 12 weeks from initial infection) and post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS; signs and symptoms beyond 12 weeks) with respect to symptomatology, abnormal functioning, psychological burden, and quality of life. Design | Systematic review. Data Sources | Electronic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest Coronavirus Research Database, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar between January and April 2021, and manual search for relevant citations from review articles. Eligibility Criteria | Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, randomised control trials, and case-control studies with participant data concerning long COVID symptomatology or abnormal functioning. Data Extraction | Studies were screened and assessed for risk of bias by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved with a third reviewer. The AXIS tool was utilised to appraise the quality of the evidence. Data were extracted and collated using a data extraction tool in Microsoft Excel. Results | Of the 1,145 studies screened, 39 were included, all describing adult cohorts with long COVID and sample sizes ranging from 32 to 1,733. Studies included data pertaining to symptomatology, pulmonary functioning, chest imaging, cognitive functioning, psychological disorder, and/or quality of life. Fatigue presented as the most prevalent symptom during both OSC and PCS at 43% and 44%, respectively. Sleep disorder (36%; 33%), dyspnoea (31%; 40%), and cough (26%; 22%) followed in prevalence. Abnormal spirometry (FEV1 <80% predicted) was observed in 15% and 11%, and abnormal chest imaging observed in 34% and 28%, respectively. Cognitive impairments were also evident (20%; 15%), as well as anxiety (28%; 34%) and depression (25%; 32%). Decreased quality of life was reported by 40% of patients with OSC and 57% by those with PCS. Conclusions | The prevalences of OSC and PCS were highly variable. Reported symptoms covered a wide range of body systems, with general overlap in frequencies between the two phases. However, abnormalities in lung function and imaging seemed to be more common in OSC, whilst anxiety, depression, and poor quality of life seemed more frequent in PCS. In general, the quality of the evidence was moderate and further research is needed to better understand the complex interplay of somatic versus psychosocial drivers in long COVID. Systematic Review Registration | Registered with PROSPERO with ID #CRD42021247846.

The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews by the National Institute of Health Research (ID: CRD42021247846). The protocol can be accessed on the PROSPERO register (7).

A search strategy was created by a medical librarian that included MeSH terminology related to "postacute COVID-19", "long COVID", "prevalence", "symptomatology", "spirometry", "imaging", "cognitive", "psychological burden", and "quality of life". The full search strategy is shown in Appendix A. EMBASE, MEDLINE, ProQuest Coronavirus Research Database, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar were searched between January and April 2021, with the search was limited to articles published between March 2020 and April 2021. A manual search of review articles' reference lists was also conducted to identify relevant citations.

Studies with samples sizes of 30 or more participants aged at least 18 years old reporting data on long COVID symptomatology and/or general post-acute COVID-19 functioning were included in the review.

In terms of study designs, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, randomised control trials, and casecontrol studies were included, while meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, clinical trials, case studies and series, opinion pieces, and non-peer reviewed publications were excluded. Studies with a gender imbalance greater than 80:20% in either direction were also excluded, as well as those reporting on specific cohorts (e.g. only patients with anosmia). Table 1 summarises the full eligibility criteria.

Citations generated from the search strategy were imported into a systematic review management tool, Covidence [covidence.org]. All duplicate imports were removed and an initial screening was conducted by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved with a third reviewer. All texts were then further screened by a single reviewer and studies adhering to the inclusion criteria were included in the data extraction stage. Studies were selected in accordance with the PICOS framework (Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study Design) based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (8).

The data from the included studies were extracted by a single reviewer using Microsoft Excel (Appendix B). Data included were as follows: i) study details (i.e. first author, date of publication, country of authorship, topic of the study, and study design); ii) population details (i.e. sample size, mean/median age, gender proportion, eligibility criteria, acute COVID-19 hospitalisation status, and time post-COVID-19 onset); iii) prevalence data of residual symptoms; and iv) prevalence data of abnormal cognitive, . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review)

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372 doi: medRxiv preprint pulmonary, and chest imaging findings, and poor mental health and quality of life data. Missing data were requested from the respective corresponding authors, if necessary.

The timepoints of assessment were adjusted for uniformity, with 'time' relating to the number of weeks following initial onset of acute COVID-19. For studies that reported time following acute phase recovery or hospital discharge, a 4-week acute phase period was inserted in accordance with NICE guidelines (5). The clinical data were then recorded as individual prevalences at single timepoints, with several prevalence points collected in longitudinal studies. Prevalences within 4-12 weeks and after 12 weeks were collated to produce a mean (+range) prevalence per symptom in the OSC and PCS phases,

respectively. An overarching long COVID prevalence incorporating all the data per symptom was also calculated. Prevalence data were only recorded for either OSC and PCS in symptoms or abnormal traits identified at three or more distinct assessment timepoints. The entire data synthesis strategy was completed via Microsoft Excel.

The AXIS Critical Appraisal Tool (9) was applied to each included study by two independent reviewers.

For each study, a score out of 20 was generated and any disparities were resolved with a third reviewer.

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review)

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021.

A total of 1,445 studies were retrieved from the online databases, with a further 37 identified through references of review articles. After 292 duplicates were removed, an initial screening of the remaining 1,190 studies was conducted. 179 studies were included for further screening which produced a final list of 39 studies for data extraction . A PRISMA flow diagram outlining the screening process is provided in Figure 1 .

The main characteristics of the 39 included studies are presented in Table 2 . Studies were conducted in 17 different countries. The sample sizes ranged from 32 to 1,733, whilst participants' ages ranged from 32 to 74 years and proportions of female participants between 31% and 72%. Participants' hospitalisation status varied between the studies, with 69% (n = 27), 3% (n = 1), and 28% (n = 11) addressing inpatient, non-hospitalised, and mixed cohorts, respectively. Assessment time post-COVID-19 onset was between 4 and 31 weeks, with data available at 51 timepoints: 29 during OSC and 22 during PCS.

The average AXIS score for all included studies was 16.9 (±2.0) out of a possible 20, which may indicate a moderate risk of bias. The major sources of bias were the use of the convenience sampling methods, which was utilised by 38 of the 39 studies (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) , and possible non-response bias in 12 studies (16, 17, 25-27, 32, 34-39, 48) . The results of the AXIS critical appraisal for each included study are displayed in Table 3 .

Based on NICE criteria (5), the diagnoses of OSC or PCS were denoted by prevalence of at least one persistent symptom or sign. Overall, the presence of one or more symptoms in patients was recorded from 20 studies during long COVID (10, 12-15, 18, 23, 26, 30, 33-35, 37, 39, 41-43, 45-47) , with two studies presenting longitudinal data (13, 45) . OSC was recorded in 9 distinct studies, with a mean prevalence of 59% and a range from 14% to 87%. As for PCS, a prevalence of 62% for at least one symptom was identified from a total of 11 studies, with a range between 18% and 89%. Figure 2 depicts the reported prevalences of these two long COVID phases. Table 4 details the prevalence ranges and number of assessment timepoints involved.

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. The most prevalent symptom in patients with OSC was fatigue with a mean prevalence of 43% (range: 5-83%). Sleep disorders were also highly prevalent at 36% (10-69%), with dyspnoea (31%; 2-64%) and cough (26%; 5-45%) reported as the most common respiratory symptoms. Other symptoms identified in patients between 4-12 weeks included arthralgia (23%; 10-48%), myalgia (18%; 1-32%), chest pain (17%; 3-35%), headache (17%; 4-36%), fever (15%; 1-51%), expectoration (14%; 1-25%), weight loss (13%; 6-17%), skin problems (12%; 8-15%), anosmia (11%; 2-21%), ageusia (11%; 1-25%), and confusion (11%; 9-14%). Less common manifestations were eye irritation (8%; 4-11%), diarrhoea (8%; 1-18%), throat pain (6%; 1-17%), palpitations (6%; 2-11%), inappetence (5%; 1-9%), chest tightness (4%; 1-6%), nausea (2%; 1-6%), and peptic ulcer (2%; 1-3%).

Fatigue also presented as the most common symptom in PCS patients at 44% (10-71%), with dyspnoea, myalgia, and sleep disorder also highly prevalent at a mean of 40% (6-73%), 34% (2-86%), and 33% (18-57%), respectively. Other symptoms reported in patients over 12 weeks post-disease onset included cough (22%; 3-59%), hair loss (20%; 6-29%), palpitations (20%; 4-62%), arthralgia (13%; 6-29%), throat pain (12%; 3-29%), anosmia (10%; 5-13%), and chest pain (10%; 1-22%). Fever (8%; 1-20%), ageusia (8%; 2-15%), and skin problems (6%; 3-12%) were less commonly reported. Table 5 summarises the prevalence of abnormal pulmonary function parameters across included studies, which include forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), the FEV1/FVC ratio, and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO). During the OSC phase, FEV1 values below of the predicted normal were identified in a mean of 15% (9-21%) of patients. Abnormal FVC scores averaged a prevalence of 12% (7-21%), and FEV1/FVC and DLCO impairments were identified in 6% (1-11%) and 44% (24-53%) of patients, respectively. During the PSC phase, the mean prevalence of abnormal FEV1 was 11% (5-17%), and those of FVC, FE1/FVC ratio, and DLCO were 11% (1-19%), 7% (6-8%), and 32% (20-46%), respectively.

Lung imaging was performed at 15 assessment points using computed tomography (CT; n=6), highresolution CT (HRCT; n=6), chest radiography (CXR; n=5), and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; n=1). Overall, abnormal imaging patterns were observed in 34% (2-60%) of patients with OSC, with specific abnormalities including ground-glass opacity (28%; 1-59%) and fibrosis (19%; 5-44%) ( Table   5 ). During the PCS phase, a prevalence of 28% (13-53%) was identified for abnormal patterns; groundglass opacity was the most prevalent abnormality at 24% (2-67%), with reticulation (11%; 1-24%), fibrosis (7%; 2-20%), and consolidation (3%; 1-7%) also recorded in a subset of patients (Table 5 ).

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372 doi: medRxiv preprint Data on cognitive impairments were available at both phases of long COVID from a total of 10 distinct timepoints (17-19, 22, 33, 36, 40) . Data regarding specific modalities of cognition such as memory, concentration, and attention were available for PCS studies only (14, 21, 22, 33, 40) and are presented in Table 5 . A mean proportion of 20% (2-28%) of patients were reported to have cognitive impairment during the OSC phase, and 15% (5-22%) during PCS. Both concentration or attention issues and memory deficits were prevalent at 30% (21-43%) and 35% (6-48%), respectively, in patients with PCS.

During the OSC phase, anxiety and depression were reported in a mean of 28% (14-53%) and 25% (15-42%), respectively (Table 5 ). 40% (23-53%) of patients also expressed a decreased quality of life.

The EQ-5D-5L was utilised to assess quality of life data, with this measure incorporating sub-scales to explore five dimensions of quality of life (50). Mobility issues were reported in a mean of 51% (37-67%) of patients who completed the EQ-5D-5L assessment during OSC, with insufficient data available for the remaining dimensions.

The PCS phase seemed to have higher mean prevalences of anxiety (34%; 6-62%) and depression (32%; 4-76%), whilst post-traumatic stress was also prevalent in 18% (6-31%) of patients. A decreased quality of life was recorded in 57% (51-67%) of the samples, with the EQ-5D-5L sub-scales identifying the following prevalence proportions: pain or discomfort (36%; 27-48%), mobility issues (32%; 7-56%), depression or anxiety (27%; 14-46%), a decrease in usual activities (23%; 2-37%), and issues with selfcare (10%; 1-17%) ( Table 5) .

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021.

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the two phases of long COVID, namely OSC (signs and symptoms from 4 to 12 weeks since initial infection) and PCS (signs and symptoms beyond 12 weeks), with respect to symptomatology, abnormal cognitive and respiratory functioning, psychological burden, and quality of life. Overall, findings indicate that the prevalence proportions of OSC and PCS were highly variable across studies, reflecting the non-probabilistic sampling of included studies and differences in hospitalisation status. Reported symptoms covered a wide range of body systems, with general overlap in frequency ranges between the two long COVID phases. Fatigue and sleep disorders seemed to have comparably high prevalences. Symptoms such as arthralgia, fever, and chest pain appeared to decrease with time, whilst myalgia, palpitations, and dyspnoea seemed to increase during the PCS phase. Data on expectoration, chest tightness, headache, confusion, gastrointestinal issues, and eye irritation was only available for the OSC phase (13, 16, 17, 22, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34, 45) , whereas hair loss was only reported in patients with PCS (14, 21, 23, 31, 47) . In terms of cognitive impairment, there seemed to be a slight mean prevalence reduction in the PCS phase, with specific data on concentration, attention, and memory being unavailable for the initial long COVID phase. Even though they also had overlapping frequencies, abnormalities in lung function and imaging seemed to have higher frequencies in OSC, whilst anxiety, depression, and poor quality of life seemed more frequent in PCS. Post-traumatic stress was only mentioned in PCS studies (11, 39, 43) .

Overall, findings would suggest that OSC and PCS are a disease continuum with marked clinical overlap as opposed to discrete, easily distinguishable phases. However, results suggest the possibility that OSC may have a higher burden of somatic disease, while PCS may be characterised by a relatively higher psychosocial burden. However, in general, the quality of the evidence was moderate, and many symptoms were only reported in a subset of patients. Therefore, further research is needed to better understand the complex interplay between somatic and psychosocial drivers in long COVID.

A strength of the study is the novel approach to the characterisation of long COVID by considering the OSC and PCS phases, which NICE separated as potentially distinct entities (5) but had not yet been systematically characterised. Another robust aspect of this review is the collation of a total of 39 studies conducted in 17 different countries, which captures the global nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the major limitation of the study resides in the lack of inter-study consistency regarding assessment methods for symptomatology and functional impairments. Many of the studies denoted symptom presence or absence using self-report tools, which are affected by self-report biases (51).

Standardised scales were also utilised, however there was no consistency in the selected scales with fatigue alone quantified by 5 distinct objective scales: the Chalder Fatigue Scale (42), the Fatigue Severity Scale (36), the PROMIS (26), and SF-36 (10) scales, and a previously validated unnamed scale (39). This poor inter-study consistency may compromise the validity of the findings, with scales potentially being more or less sensitive or even assessing distinct sub-domains of a symptom. Abnormal . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372 doi: medRxiv preprint patterns in chest imaging were also highly heterogenous through the mixed use of chest x-ray, regular CT, high-resolution CT, and magnetic resonance imaging. Due to the limited data available, differences in assessment tools were not addressed in the eligibility screening phase of the review. Overall, the lack of inter-study consistency in methodology may explain the large ranges observed in the data. The moderate quality of the data acquired from the included studies must also be acknowledged in relation to the wide-ranging prevalence findings. An average AXIS score of 16.9 (±2.0) for the studies suggests that the results should be interpreted with caution (9).

Although the number of reviews attempting to characterise long COVID is exponentially increasing (49, 52-56), many of those published present a narrative, rather than systematic, discussion of the findings.

In addition to adding value by characterising long COVID separately by OSC and PCS phases, our study offers a structured systematic overview of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Another point of note regarding the present review is the inclusion of multisystem-related symptoms and impairments. While, previous reviews have focused solely on neurological or respiratory functioning (57) (58) (59) (60) , our review provides a more comprehensive and collective characterisation of long COVID and further evidences its heterogenous nature. We acknowledge, however, that our review is not fully comprehensive. For example, Nalbandian et al. (52) narratively described haematologic, renal, and endocrine post-acute COVID-19 complications, and these body systems were not incorporated into the present review's literature search. Another potential limitation of the current review was the fact that patient hospitalisation status or acute phase history were not taken into account when characterising the signs and symptoms of OSC and PCS. While primary data for these characteristics were indeed presented by several studies (21, 27, 40) , there were insufficient data available to provide a comprehensive distinction of patients' outcomes with respect to them.

This systematic review provides clinicians, other healthcare professionals, and policymakers with a comprehensive, yet concise, characterisation of the two phases of long COVID, namely OSC and PCS.

Overall, the findings provide a systematic description of the typical clinical profile of long COVID patients and could enhance the understanding of the condition, thereby potentially resulting in better treatment options and management of symptoms, and implementation of policies that allow long COVID patients to receive the best possible care. The suggested higher relative importance of psychosocial drivers in the PCS phase may inform more holistic assessment and treatment strategies, including psychological and psychosocial supports. Additionally, the frequent presence of psychological distress may be linked to several reported symptoms, with a range of psychological disorders often associated with hair loss (61) , sleep disorders (62), gastrointestinal issues (63), pain (64) , and cardiovascular symptoms (64) .

Establishing potential associations will further enhance patient care by enabling to cluster signs and symptoms, and characterise several 'subtypes' of long COVID.

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372 doi: medRxiv preprint

The suggested finding of this review is that the longer long COVID persists, the more important psychological and psychosocial aspects could be. With this, further research is needed to better establish the relative contributions of somatic versus psychosocial drivers in long COVID over time.

Should research prove psychosocial drivers more important, this might help avoid inappropriate medicalisation of this still poorly understood condition and divert support resources where they are most needed (e.g. social security, psychological support). In addition, further characterisation is needed regarding the potential impact of acute phase presentation, hospitalisation status, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, occupation, and baseline physical and psychological/psychiatric comorbidities on the risk of developing long COVID. In addition, there is scope for future studies linking long COVID clinical profiles to respective physiological and immunological profiles, to see whether or not they align in the pathophysiology of long COVID.

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) 

Exclusion Criteria

Studies with participant data concerning long COVID symptomatology and/or general post-acute COVID-19 functioning.

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, randomised control trials, and case-control studies.

Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, clinical trials, case studies and series, opinion pieces, and non-peer reviewed publications.

Participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection or were suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Participants recovered from acute COVID-19 (denoted as ≥4 weeks following symptom onset or hospital admission; immediately following discharge from hospital; or indicated as "recovered" by the respective researchers). . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Prevalence (%)

Q1 N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Q2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q3N N N Q4 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q5 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q6 Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q7 Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Q8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q9 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q10 Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Q11 Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q12 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q13 N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N Y Q14 Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Q15 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q16 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q17 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q18 Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Q19 N YN N Q20 Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

. CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review) . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review)

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not certified by peer review)

The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted June 30, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259372 doi: medRxiv preprint

WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic

World Health Organisation. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard: World Health Organisation

The prevalence of symptoms in 24

COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 148 studies from 9 countries

Demographic risk factors for COVID-19 infection, severity, ICU admission and death: A meta-analysis of 59 studies

Causation or confounding: Why controls are critical for characterizing long COVID

Long COVID: A systematic review of chronic fatigue and other persistent symptoms following acute phase recovery: PROSPERO; 2021

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS)

Patient outcomes after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and implications for follow-up: Results from a prospective UK cohort

Respiratory and psychophysical sequelae among patients with COVID-19 four months after hospital discharge

Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19

Follow-up of adults with noncritical COVID-19 two months after symptom onset

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 in East London: A retrospective cohort analysis

Sixty-Day Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19

Pulmonary function and functional capacity in COVID-19 survivors with persistent dyspnoea

Follow up of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Pulmonary and extrapulmonary disease sequelae

Chest radiography is a poor predictor of respiratory symptoms and functional impairment in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia

Residual clinical damage after COVID-19: A retrospective and prospective observational cohort study

Integrative respiratory follow-up of severe COVID-19 reveals common functional and lung imaging sequelae

Post-discharge persistent symptoms and health-related quality of life after hospitalization for COVID-19

Postdischarge symptoms and rehabilitation needs in survivors of COVID-19 infection: A cross-sectional evaluation

6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: A cohort study

Impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on pulmonary function in early convalescence phase

The COVID-19 sequelae: A cross-sectional evaluation of post-recovery symptoms and the need for rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors

Persistence of symptoms and quality of life at 35 days after hospitalization for COVID-19 infection

lung function and CT findings three months after hospital admission for COVID-19

Three-month follow-up study of survivors of coronavirus disease 2019 after discharge

Discharge characteristics and care transitions of hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Long-COVID': A crosssectional study of persisting symptoms, biomarker and imaging abnormalities following hospitalisation for COVID-19

Prolonged and lateonset symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019. Open Forum Infect Dis

Abnormal pulmonary function in COVID-19 patients at time of hospital discharge

Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome. Incidence and risk factors: A Mediterranean cohort study

Long COVID': Persistent COVID-19 symptoms in survivors managed in Lagos State

Long-COVID: An evolving problem with an extensive impact. A

Post-covid-19 fatigue: Potential contributing factors

Long COVID could be four different syndromes, review suggests

A review of persistent post-COVID syndrome (PPCS)

Prevalence of potential respiratory symptoms in survivors of hospital admission after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Emerging neurological and psychobiological aspects of COVID-19 infection

Neurological manifestations in COVID-19: A narrative review

Neurological consequences of COVID-19: What have we learned and where do we go from here?

Burden of hair loss: Stress and the underestimated psychosocial impact of telogen effluvium and androgenetic alopecia

Insomnia and sleep duration in a large cohort of patients with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders

Gastrointestinal comorbidity and symptoms associated with depression in patients aged over 60 years

Posttraumatic stress disorder and persistent somatic symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of sense of threat

Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base that that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation? Q6. Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation? Q7. Were measures undertaken to address and categorise non-responders? Q8. Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study? Q9. Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialled, piloted or published previously? Q10. Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? Q11. Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated? Q12. Were the basic data adequately described? Q13. Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias? Q14. If appropriate, was information about non-responders described? Q15. Were the results internally consistent? Q16. Were the results for the analyses described in the methods