MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321089274 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1112383

Post-acute COVID-19 symptom risk in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4321089274 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuan Niu, Zhang-Hong Lv, Chunrong Sun, Yuan-Yuan Wen, Ting-Yu Tao, Dan Qian, Fang-Ping Tao, Jiahui Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Education of Zhejiang Province
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Observational studyMeta-analysisConvalescenceSystematic reviewMEDLINEIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineDiseaseInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Post-acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms occurred in most of the COVID-19 survivors. However, few studies have examined the issue of whether hospitalization results in different post-acute COVID-19 symptom risks. This study aimed to compare potential COVID-19 long-term effects in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors. Methods This study is designed as a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. A systematic search of six databases was performed for identifying articles published from inception until April 20th, 2022, which compared post-acute COVID-19 symptom risk in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors using a predesigned search strategy included terms for SARS-CoV-2 (eg, COVID, coronavirus , and 2019-nCoV ), post-acute COVID-19 Syndrome (eg, post-COVID, post COVID conditions, chronic COVID symptom, long COVID, long COVID symptom, long-haul COVID, COVID sequelae, convalescence , and persistent COVID symptom ), and hospitalization ( hospitalized, in hospital , and home-isolated ). The present meta-analysis was conducted according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement using R software 4.1.3 to create forest plots. Q statistics and the I 2 index were used to evaluate heterogeneity in this meta-analysis. Results Six observational studies conducted in Spain, Austria, Switzerland, Canada, and the USA involving 419 hospitalized and 742 non-hospitalized COVID-19 survivors were included. The number of COVID-19 survivors in included studies ranged from 63 to 431, and follow-up data were collected through visits in four studies and another two used an electronic questionnaire, visit and telephone, respectively. Significant increase in the risks of long dyspnea (OR = 3.18, 95% CI = 1.90–5.32), anxiety (OR = 3.09, 95% CI = 1.47–6.47), myalgia (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.02–5.33), and hair loss (OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.07–7.12) risk were found in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors compared with outpatients. Conversely, persisting ageusia risk was significantly reduced in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors than in non-hospitalized patients. Conclusion The findings suggested that special attention and patient-centered rehabilitation service based on a needs survey should be provided for hospitalized COVID-19 survivors who experienced high post-acute COVID-19 symptoms risk.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0320.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.336 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations40
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207