A nationwide questionnaire study of post-acute symptoms and health problems after SARS-CoV-2 infection in Denmark
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
A considerable number of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 continue to experience symptoms after the acute phase. Here, we report findings from a nationwide questionnaire study in Denmark including 61,002 RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 91,878 test-negative controls aged 15-years or older. Six to twelve months after the test, the risks of 18 out of 21 symptoms were elevated among test-positives. The largest adjusted risk differences (RD) were observed for dysosmia (RD = 10.92%, 95% CI 10.68–11.21%), dysgeusia (RD = 8.68%, 95% CI 8.43–8.93%), fatigue/exhaustion (RD = 8.43%, 95%CI 8.14–8.74%), dyspnea (RD = 4.87%, 95% CI 4.65–5.09%) and reduced strength in arms/legs (RD = 4.68%, 95% CI 4.45–4.89%). During the period from the test and until completion of the questionnaire, new diagnoses of anxiety (RD = 1.15%, 95% CI 0.95–1.34%) or depression (RD = 1.00%, 95% CI 0.81–1.19%) were also more common among test-positives. Even in a population where the majority of test-positives were not hospitalized, a considerable proportion experiences symptoms up to 12 months after infection. Being female or middle-aged increases risks.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.27.22271328: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Controls were randomly selected using incidence density sampling on the test date with a ratio of 2:3 between test-positives and -negatives. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: The main strengths of the present study is its considerable size and the use of a large time-matched …
SciScore for 10.1101/2022.02.27.22271328: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization Controls were randomly selected using incidence density sampling on the test date with a ratio of 2:3 between test-positives and -negatives. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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: The main strengths of the present study is its considerable size and the use of a large time-matched control population, making it possible to compare post-acute symptoms among COVID-19 cases and the background population represented by the control group. In addition, we were able to adjust for important confounders, including comorbidity. This allowed us to calculate adjusted risk difference measures for each acute and post-acute symptom, thus ‘deducting’ the general morbidity in the population, including any general health effects that may have been caused by the lock-down or other societal restrictions put in place as part of the epidemic control. The main limitations of the study are the self-reporting of symptoms and the participation rate. With little over 1/3 of the invitees choosing to participate, we cannot rule out participation bias. The motivation for participation could be higher among those experiencing post-acute symptoms, but on the other hand, those with very severe symptoms might not have had the energy to participate. Still, response rates among test-positives and –negatives were similar. However, because of the size of the study and the marked risk differences between the case- and control groups, we believe that our results are valid. The current study does not include patient register data, other than data used for calculation of the Charlson comorbidity index scores and defining hospitalizations, meaning that we were not able ...
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.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-