A systematic review of the systematic review of post COVID-19 syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a global inquiry into the transmission, mortality, risk factors, and management of the disease. Recently, however, attention has shifted toward its long-term consequences. There is a need for a better understanding of the predictors and symptoms of post-COVID syndrome, to ensure appropriate care for patients recovering from COVID-19 beyond the acute phase. Methods: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane databases, and available data in the PROSPERO databases. We also explored the reference lists of included articles and any systematic reviews identified therein. We searched the keywords "Post Covid", "Post COVID syndrome", "Post- Covid" and "PostCOVID", until July 2021. Results: Of 8167 articles, 13 were included. The syndrome affects several systems with variable prevalence. Fatigue and sleep disturbance is the most common symptom of acute post-COVID syndrome, observed in more than two-thirds of patients, while a reduction in quality of life and general health status was noted in up to 69%. Furthermore, a reduced aerobic and diffusion capacity was seen in 38% of patients up to one month after presumed recovery from infection. Radiologically, in up to 52% of patients, a ground-glass opacity (GGO) was noted beyond three months post-infection. The incidence of new psychiatric illness increased from as early as 14 days after infection and up to three or six months. Hearing impairment or loss, whether sensorineural or conductive, was noted in up to 8.3% of patients, and tinnitus was seen in up to 4.2%. Conclusion: Overall, given the variability in the manifestation of post-COVID syndrome, a multidisciplinary team is required to better serve these patients. We therefore urge the establishment of such teams, encompassing internal medicine, pulmonology, cardiology, and neurocognitive services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.090 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".