MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298008685 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063846

Protocol for a systematic review of interventions targeting mental health, cognition or psychological well-being among individuals with long COVID

2022· review· en· W4298008685 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa D. Hawke, Eric E. Brown, Terri Rodak, Susan L. Rossell, Chantal F. Ski, Gillian Strudwick, David R. Thompson, Wei Wang, Dandan Xu, David Castle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Psychological interventionMental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Cognition2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Public healthPandemicPsychiatryAlternative medicineNursingVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)PathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: For some people, COVID-19 infection leads to negative health impacts that can last into the medium or long term. The long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infection, or 'long COVID', negatively affects not only physical health, but also mental health, cognition or psychological well-being. Complex, integrated interventions are recommended for long COVID, including psychological components; however, the effectiveness of such interventions has yet to be critically evaluated. This protocol describes a systematic review to be conducted of scientific literature reporting on clinical trials of interventions to promote mental health, cognition or psychological well-being among individuals with long COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A health sciences librarian will identify the relevant literature through comprehensive systematic searches of Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, medRxiv, PsyArXiv, China National Knowledge Internet and WANFANG Data databases, as well as The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Studies will be selected through a title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extracted will include intervention descriptions and efficacy metrics. Data will be narratively synthesised; if the data allow, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Risk of bias assessment will be conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for systematic reviews is not required. As researchers and clinicians respond to the new clinical entity that long COVID represents, this review will synthesise a rapidly emerging evidence base describing and testing interventions to promote mental health, cognition or psychological well-being. Results will therefore be disseminated through an open-access peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations to inform research and clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022318678.

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)0.093
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0930.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.022
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0080.008
Research integrity0.0130.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1530.026

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.358 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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