↓ Skip to main content

Short-term and Long-term Rates of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Network Open, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 10,007)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
720 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
694 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Short-term and Long-term Rates of Postacute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Published in
JAMA Network Open, October 2021
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28568
Pubmed ID
Authors

Destin Groff, Ashley Sun, Anna E. Ssentongo, Djibril M. Ba, Nicholas Parsons, Govinda R. Poudel, Alain Lekoubou, John S. Oh, Jessica E. Ericson, Paddy Ssentongo, Vernon M. Chinchilli

Abstract

Short-term and long-term persistent postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) have not been systematically evaluated. The incidence and evolution of PASC are dependent on time from infection, organ systems and tissue affected, vaccination status, variant of the virus, and geographic region. To estimate organ system-specific frequency and evolution of PASC. PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, the World Health Organization Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, and CoronaCentral databases were searched from December 2019 through March 2021. A total of 2100 studies were identified from databases and through cited references. Studies providing data on PASC in children and adults were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for abstracting data were followed and performed independently by 2 reviewers. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. The main outcome was frequency of PASC diagnosed by (1) laboratory investigation, (2) radiologic pathology, and (3) clinical signs and symptoms. PASC were classified by organ system, ie, neurologic; cardiovascular; respiratory; digestive; dermatologic; and ear, nose, and throat as well as mental health, constitutional symptoms, and functional mobility. From a total of 2100 studies identified, 57 studies with 250 351 survivors of COVID-19 met inclusion criteria. The mean (SD) age of survivors was 54.4 (8.9) years, 140 196 (56%) were male, and 197 777 (79%) were hospitalized during acute COVID-19. High-income countries contributed 45 studies (79%). The median (IQR) proportion of COVID-19 survivors experiencing at least 1 PASC was 54.0% (45.0%-69.0%; 13 studies) at 1 month (short-term), 55.0% (34.8%-65.5%; 38 studies) at 2 to 5 months (intermediate-term), and 54.0% (31.0%-67.0%; 9 studies) at 6 or more months (long-term). Most prevalent pulmonary sequelae, neurologic disorders, mental health disorders, functional mobility impairments, and general and constitutional symptoms were chest imaging abnormality (median [IQR], 62.2% [45.8%-76.5%]), difficulty concentrating (median [IQR], 23.8% [20.4%-25.9%]), generalized anxiety disorder (median [IQR], 29.6% [14.0%-44.0%]), general functional impairments (median [IQR], 44.0% [23.4%-62.6%]), and fatigue or muscle weakness (median [IQR], 37.5% [25.4%-54.5%]), respectively. Other frequently reported symptoms included cardiac, dermatologic, digestive, and ear, nose, and throat disorders. In this systematic review, more than half of COVID-19 survivors experienced PASC 6 months after recovery. The most common PASC involved functional mobility impairments, pulmonary abnormalities, and mental health disorders. These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4,031 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 694 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 694 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 76 11%
Student > Bachelor 60 9%
Other 51 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 7%
Student > Master 46 7%
Other 102 15%
Unknown 312 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 132 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 4%
Neuroscience 24 3%
Psychology 19 3%
Other 107 15%
Unknown 346 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3971. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,265
of 25,859,234 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#10
of 10,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84
of 440,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#1
of 513 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,859,234 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 128.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 513 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.