ABSTRACT
Importance: Since late 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has given rise to a global pandemic and introduced many health challenges with economic, social, and political consequences. In addition to a complex acute presentation that can affect multiple organ systems, there is mounting evidence of various persistent long-term sequelae. The worldwide scientific community is characterizing a diverse range of seemingly common long-term outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the underlying assumptions in these studies vary widely making comparisons difficult. Numerous publications describe the clinical manifestations of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC or long COVID), but they are difficult to integrate because of heterogeneous methods and the lack of a standard for denoting the many phenotypic manifestations of long COVID. Observations: We identified 303 articles published before April 29, 2021, curated 59 relevant manuscripts that described clinical manifestations in 81 cohorts of individuals three weeks or more following acute COVID-19, and mapped 287 unique clinical findings to Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms. Conclusions and Relevance: Patients and clinicians often use different terms to describe the same symptom or condition. Addressing the heterogeneous and inconsistent language used to describe the clinical manifestations of long COVID combined with the lack of standardized terminologies for long COVID will provide a necessary foundation for comparison and meta-analysis of different studies. Translating long COVID manifestations into computable HPO terms will improve the analysis, data capture, and classification of long COVID patients. If researchers, clinicians, and patients share a common language, then studies can be compared or pooled more effectively. Furthermore, mapping lay terminology to HPO for long COVID manifestations will help patients assist clinicians and researchers in creating phenotypic characterizations that are computationally accessible, which may improve the stratification and thereby diagnosis and treatment of long COVID.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ObjectivesHigh-quality meta-analyses on COVID-19 are in urgent demand for evidence-based decision making. However, conventional approaches exclude double-zero-event studies (DZS) from meta-analyses. We assessed whether including such studies impacts the conclusions in a recent systematic urgent review on prevention measures for preventing person-to-person transmission of COVID-19. Study designs and settingsWe extracted data for meta-analyses containing DZS from a recent review that assessed the effects of physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection for preventing person-to-person transmission. A bivariate generalized linear mixed model was used to re-do the meta-analyses with DZS included. We compared the synthesized relative risks (RRs) of the three prevention measures, their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and significance tests (at the level of 0.05) including and excluding DZS. ResultsThe re-analyzed COVID-19 data containing DZS involved a total of 1,784 participants who were not considered in the original review. Including DZS noticeably changed the synthesized RRs and 95% CIs of several interventions. For the meta-analysis of the effect of physical distancing, the RR of COVID-19 decreased from 0.15 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.73) to 0.07 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.98). For several meta-analyses, the statistical significance of the synthesized RR was changed. The RR of eye protection with a physical distance of 2 m and the RR of physical distancing when using N95 respirators were no longer statistically significant after including DZS. ConclusionsDZS may contain useful information. Sensitivity analyses that include DZS in meta-analysis are recommended.