Back

Long COVID and kidney function: A scoping review protocol

Frediani, M.; Ribeiro, H. S.; Busatto, G.; Carvalho, C.; Burdmann, E. A.

2024-02-29 nephrology
10.1101/2024.02.29.24303559 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had catastrophic repercussions worldwide, including short- and long-term effects on multiple organs. The term "long COVID" encompasses signs and symptoms associated with COVID that persist for more than two months. However, the effects of long COVID on kidney function remain poorly understood. ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to describe the effects of long COVID on kidney function and/or kidney-related outcomes. MethodsWe will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the PCC framework, we will include studies that investigated long COVID survivors (Participants); describing kidney function and/or kidney-related outcomes (Concept); in all settings and designs (Context). A comprehensive literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases without date or language restrictions from inception until August 2023. Websites, books, and guidelines will also be searched. Observational studies with retrospective, prospective, and case-control designs will be considered. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and perform the full-text review. Data extraction will be done by the main reviewer and checked by a second one. Data about the diagnosis of COVID, follow-up time for long symptoms, and kidney function assessment and outcomes will be extracted from selected evidence. The quantitative results will be synthesized and presented in tables and figures along with a narrative summary. Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethical approval for this scoping review. On completion, it will be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and presented at a conference.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.