Post‑COVID‑19 Syndrome in Outpatients: a Cohort Study

  1. Florian Desgranges
  2. Eliana Tadini
  3. Aline Munting
  4. Jean Regina
  5. Paraskevas Filippidis
  6. Benjamin Viala
  7. Eleftherios Karachalias
  8. Véronique Suttels
  9. David Haefliger
  10. Eleftheria Kampouri
  11. Mathias Van Singer
  12. Jonathan Tschopp
  13. Laurence Rochat Stettler
  14. Siméon Schaad
  15. Thomas Brahier
  16. Olivier Hugli
  17. Yolanda Mueller
  18. Alexandre Gouveia
  19. Onya Opota
  20. Pierre-Nicolas Carron
  21. Benoît Guery
  22. Matthaios Papadimitriou-Olivgeris
  23. Noémie Boillat-Blanco
  24. , the RegCOVID Research Group

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1007/s11606-021-07242-1
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255742: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics: The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton of Vaud, Switzerland.
    Consent: All participants gave their verbal consent to participate in this study during the phone interview (project-ID CER-VD 2020-01107 and 2019-02283).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    STATA (version 15.1, Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) statistical software and GraphPad Prism 8.3 (GraphPad, San Diego, CA, USA) were used for analyses.
    STATA
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has some limitations. First, most surveyed symptoms are subjective and prone to observer bias. Symptoms may also come from an intercurrent condition at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis and not always represent sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, inclusion of a symptomatic control group supports the association between some symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, this reflects the clinical reality that physicians face in a post-COVID consultation. Since the prevalence of most symptoms was lower than 10%, the absence of difference may be due to a lack of statistical power to detect an association with COVID-19. Our study suffers from a selection bias due to SARS-CoV-2 test criteria (health care workers or presence of a risk factor of adverse outcome) at the time of the study, which may prevent generalization of our findings to the broad population. In addition, we included a SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative control group, who had a slightly different clinical presentation (only patients with acute respiratory symptoms) compared to COVID-positive (any symptom suggestive of COVID-19). Furthermore, we cannot formally exclude that some COVID-negative had an undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection due to a false negative PCR result. However, we used a validated SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test on a nasopharyngeal swab performed by a dedicated trained medical team to minimize technical and sample collection bias (19,39). In conclusion, our study shows that more than half of outpatients ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.19.21255742 on medRxiv