Characterising Long Covid: a living systematic review update with controlled studies
Michelen, M.; Sigfrid, L.; Kartsonaki, C.; Shemilt, I.; Hastie, C.; O'Hara, M. E.; Suett, J. C.; Stelson, E. A.; Bugaeva, P.; Dahmash, D.; Rigby, I.; Munblit, D.; Harriss, E.; Burls, A.; Cheng, V.; Scott, J. T.; Carson, G.; Olliaro, P. L.; Stavropoulou, C.
Show abstract
StatementThe authors have withdrawn their manuscript owing to a reporting error that we have identified in the conduct of this updated systematic review. On 7th March 2022 we made changes to the original protocol published in F1000, to highlight the need to keep up with the evolving landscape of Covid-19 and Covid-19 research and focus on comparative, controlled studies. The revisions included also changes in data extraction and analysis that would be needed to do so. These changes were done in consultation with members of the Long COVID Support Group. However, we omitted to publicize these changes in an accessible, modified version of our protocol, and/or by updating our preregistered PROSPERO record (CRD42020211131) and F1000 publication, prior to commencing and completing these stages of the process. In this manuscript, which reports the revised analyses, we have consequently also omitted to explicitly describe these changes as important deviations from the published protocol. Additionally, following rapid, sustained, and continuous growth in the conduct and reporting of eligible primary studies, it has become clear that, with or without the changes described above, we do not have sufficient capacity or resources to transition our baseline systematic review to being regularly updated using a living systematic review approach. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as reference for the project. If you have any questions, please contact the corresponding author.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The incubation period of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research 96%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 93%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 92%
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 96%
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 95%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 94%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.