Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920063›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Interventions for the management of post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID): protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Dena Zeraatkar, Michael Ling, Sarah Kirsh, Tanvir Jassal, Tyler Pitre, Samantha Chakraborty, Tari Turner, Lyn Turkstra, Roger S McIntyre, Ariel Izcovich and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Dena ZeraatkarDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada zeraatd@mcmaster.ca.
Michael LingDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah KirshDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1271-8509
Tanvir JassalDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Tyler PitreDivision of Respirology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3015-0723
Samantha ChakrabortySchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9708-4532
Tari TurnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7990-1623
Lyn TurkstraSchool of Rehabilitation Science and Program in Neuroscience, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Roger S McIntyreDepartment of Psychiatry and Pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ariel IzcovichDepartment of Medicine, Universidad del Salvador, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9053-4396
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5855-5461
Thomas AgoritsasDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Signe A FlottorpCentre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2961-7461
Paul GarnerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
Rachel J CoubanDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jason W BusseDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-8712

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUp to 15% of survivors of COVID-19 infection experience long-term health effects, including fatigue, myalgia and impaired cognitive function, termed post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. Several trials that study the benefits and harms of various interventions to manage long COVID have been published and hundreds more are planned or are ongoing. Trustworthy systematic reviews that clarify the benefits and harms of interventions are critical to promote evidence-based practice.

objectiveTo create and maintain a living systematic review and network meta-analysis addressing the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID.

methodsEligible trials will randomise adults with long COVID to pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions, placebo, sham or usual care. We will identify eligible studies by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED and CENTRAL from inception, without language restrictions.Reviewers will work independently and in duplicate to screen search records, collect data from eligible trials, including trial and patient characteristics and outcomes of interest and assess risk of bias. Our outcomes of interest will include patient-reported fatigue, pain, postexertional malaise, changes in education or employment status, cognitive function, mental health, dyspnoea, quality of life, physical function, recovery and serious adverse events.For each outcome, when possible, we will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis. When there are compelling reasons to suspect that certain interventions are only applicable or effective for a subtype of long COVID, we will perform separate network meta-analyses. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will guide our assessment of the certainty of evidence.We will update our living review biannually, on the publication of a seminal trial, or when new evidence emerges that may change clinical practice.

conclusionThis living systematic review and network meta-analysis will provide comprehensive, trustworthy and up-to-date summaries of the evidence addressing the benefits and harms of interventions for the treatment and management of long COVID. We will make our findings available publicly and work with guideline-producing organisations to inform their recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study describes the protocol for a systematic review that uses data from published trial reports. Therefore, the study is exempt from ethics review. We intend to deposit all data in a public repository and publish each iteration of the living review online.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cognitive DysfunctionFatigueHumansMyalgiaNetwork Meta-Analysis as TopicPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeResearch DesignSARS-CoV-2Systematic Reviews as Topicnetwork meta-analysispost-acute COVID-19 syndromesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39920063
PMCPMC11808878

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.