Post-COVID-19 condition 3 months after hospitalisation with SARS-CoV-2 in South Africa: a prospective cohort study

  1. Murray Dryden
  2. Caroline Mudara
  3. Caroline Vika
  4. Lucille Blumberg
  5. Natalie Mayet
  6. Cheryl Cohen
  7. Stefano Tempia
  8. Arifa Parker
  9. Jeremy Nel
  10. Rubeshan Perumal
  11. Michelle J Groome
  12. Francesca Conradie
  13. Norbert Ndjeka
  14. Louise Sigfrid
  15. Laura Merson
  16. Waasila Jassat

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00286-8
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.06.22270594: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Verbal consent was obtained and recorded, and, where possible, interviews were conducted in the language of the participants’ choice (English, isiZulu, isiXhosa, SeSotho and Afrikaans).
    IRB: Ethics and approvals: The study was approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC M201150).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationOf all eligible, discharged, adult participants with contact details available, a random selection of participants were invited by telephone for participation in this study.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data was entered and stored on a secure online Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, version 10.6.14, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.) repository hosted by the University of Oxford on behalf of ISARIC.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)
    Statistical analyses were performed using Stata software version 16 (StataCorp Limited, College Station, Texas, USA).
    Stata
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)
    StataCorp
    suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

    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:
    Strengths and limitations: This is a large nationally representative longitudinal cohort study and the first of its kind in South Africa and Africa. As part of the global ISARIC collaboration, we used standardised and validated tools, which allow comparison across participating countries. The alignment to the DATCOV hospital surveillance system and national SARS-CoV-2 case list allowed us to identify potential participants, and to link key demographic and clinical data related to their hospital admission. These are preliminary results of an ongoing study. The study will continue to follow up participants until 12 months after hospital discharge. The study had several limitations. Firstly, the study was limited to participants who were hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2. In the future it would be of interest to include those who were not hospitalised and participants with other respiratory infections who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. The inclusion of only previously hospitalised participants may result in over-reporting of symptoms not specifically attributable to acute COVID-19 or PCC. Some of the symptoms may relate to PICS or complications arising directly from hospitalisation. Secondly, all participants were enrolled through a telephone assessment, limiting the enrolment to those that had a phone number recorded. This may explain the greater proportion of individuals from higher socio-economic strata that were enrolled. Thirdly, participants who experienced symptoms may have b...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    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.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    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 10.1101/2022.03.06.22270594 on medRxiv