ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Exploring duplication in reviews of Long COVID: 2020-2023.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe unnecessary duplication of reviews is a recognised problem in the field of evidence synthesis. This paper reports findings from a study exploring potential duplication of effort in reviews on the frequency and/or risk of Long COVID that were published during the first 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe extracted and summarised the aims and key characteristics of 112 reviews identified from 5 published evidence summaries commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), England, which covered the period from January 2020 to January 2023.
resultsThere was significant similarity in the aims and characteristics of the 112 reviews. We identified 43 reviews reporting on any persistent symptoms/effects and 69 that focused on specific symptoms/effects; overlap in the conditions studied was common. The majority of reviews focused on individuals of any age (n = 62); where restrictions were applied (n = 50), all but six reviews focused on adults. Most reviews focused on both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients (n = 97), and authors searched the same time periods. Half of authors reported publishing a protocol prospectively (n = 58), and only a minority received specific review funding (n = 39).
conclusionsOur findings raise concerns about unnecessary duplication of effort and the extent to which all reviews we assessed will have added substantially to the Long COVID evidence base. Researchers should seek to minimise research redundancy and only conduct new reviews when a genuine knowledge gap exists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.