MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293455494 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101624

Impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the risk of developing long-COVID and on existing long-COVID symptoms: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4293455494 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kin Israel Notarte, Jesus Alfonso Catahay, Jacqueline Veronica Velasco, Adriel Pastrana, Abbygail Therese Ver, Flos Carmeli Pangilinan, Princess Juneire Peligro, Michael Casimiro, Jonathan Jaime G. Guerrero, Ma. Margarita Leticia Gellaco, Giuseppe Lippi, Brandon Michael Henry, César Fernández‐de‐las‐Peñas

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundConsejería de Sanidad, Comunidad de Madrid
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CINAHLMEDLINEOdds ratioImmunologyInternal medicinePsychological interventionDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Although COVID-19 vaccination decreases the risk of severe illness, it is unclear whether vaccine administration may impact the prevalence of long-COVID. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and long-COVID symptomatology. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to June 20, 2022. Peer-reviewed studies or preprints monitoring multiple symptoms appearing after acute SARS-CoV-2 infection either before or after COVID-19 vaccination collected by personal, telephone or electronic interviews were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings From 2584 studies identified, 11 peer-reviewed studies and six preprints were included. The methodological quality of 82% ( n =14/17) studies was high. Six studies ( n =17,256,654 individuals) investigated the impact of vaccines before acute SARS-CoV-2 infection (vaccine-infection-long-COVID design). Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long-COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose. Eleven studies ( n =36,736 COVID-19 survivors) investigated changes in long-COVID symptoms after vaccination (infection-long-COVID-vaccine design). Seven articles showed an improvement in long-COVID symptoms at least one dose post-vaccination, while four studies reported no change or worsening in long-COVID symptoms after vaccination. Interpretation Low level of evidence (grade III, case-controls, cohort studies) suggests that vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of subsequent long-COVID. The impact of vaccination in people with existing long-COVID symptoms is still controversial, with some data showing changes in symptoms and others did not. These assumptions are limited to those vaccines used in the studies. Funding The LONG-COVID-EXP-CM study supported by a grant of Comunidad de Madrid.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations499
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207