The Evolution of Long COVID Research, 2020 to 2025: A Bibliometric Analysis with Implications for Clinical Practice and Policy
Daodu, L. P.; Ajanaku, N.; Ojeikere, K. I.; Ozokolie, G. E.; Okouzi, M.; Ogunbiyi, O. J.; Onah, C. M.; Olotu, M.; Chibuoke, H. C.; Erameh, M.
Show abstract
BackgroundSince 2020, recognition of long COVID (post-acute sequelae of COVID-19) has prompted rapid multidisciplinary research across medicine, public health, psychology, and the social sciences. The literature is extensive and heterogeneous, making it challenging to synthesise current knowledge, identify evidence gaps, and inform research priorities. MethodsWe performed a bibliometric review of long COVID publications indexed in Scopus from January 2020 to March 2025. Records were analysed using VOSviewer and Biblioshiny to assess publication trends, country and institutional contributions, authorship networks, citation impact, and thematic clusters. ResultsPublications on long COVID grew at an annual rate of 19.81%, peaking in 2024, reflecting intensified global attention. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom were the largest contributors. Thematic mapping revealed three dominant clusters: clinical research on manifestations and diagnostics; psychological research on mental health and cognitive sequelae; and social and rehabilitation research addressing disability, return to work, and service delivery. Prominent institutions and key authors played a central role in knowledge production and collaboration networks. Notable gaps included limited studies on paediatric long COVID, scarce long-term outcome data from diverse populations and settings, and few rigorous evaluations of interventions and service models. ConclusionsThe long COVID research landscape from 2020 to 2025 is dynamic and increasingly collaborative, yet exhibits geographic and topical imbalances. To advance understanding and improve patient outcomes, stakeholders should support inclusive international collaborations, prioritise funding for underexplored populations and intervention trials, and accelerate translation of findings into clinical guidelines and integrated care models. Continued bibliometric monitoring will help target research investments and policy responses.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Inequalities in COVID-19 inequalities research: who had the capacity to respond? 94%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 94%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- How the COVID-19 pandemic is shaping research in Africa: inequalities in scholarly output and collaborations and new opportunities for scientific leadership 95%
- Studies of Novel Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Global Analysis of Literature 92%
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital services for patients with cardiac diseases: a scoping review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 94%
- Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence 93%
- Cohort Study Protocol of the Brazilian Collaborative Research Network on COVID-19: strengthening WHO global data 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of armed conflict on the epidemiological situation of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Libya, Syria, and Yemen 91%
- Tracking changes in reporting of epidemiological data during the COVID-19 pandemic in Southeast Asia: an observational study during the first wave 91%
- Nowcasting and Forecasting the Spread of COVID-19 and Healthcare Demand In Turkey, A Modelling Study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research in Africa 94%
- Public sentiment towards vaccination: characterizing global patterns and drivers of scientific research 93%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 93%
"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.