Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Flawed body of studies shows true ‘long COVID’ risk likely exaggerated (data bias)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1002298

EXCERPT: ... During the early stages of the pandemic, when SARS-CoV-2 testing wasn’t widely available, studies were more likely to include a non-representative sample of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients by including fewer patients with mild or no symptoms.

This is known as sampling bias, which occurs when certain members of a population have a higher probability of being included in a study sample than others, potentially limiting the generalisability of a study’s findings, explain the researchers.

“Our analysis indicates that, in addition to including appropriately matched controls, there is a need for better case definitions and more stringent [‘long COVID’] criteria, which should include continuous symptoms after confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and take into consideration baseline characteristics, including physical and mental health, which may contribute to an individual’s post COVID experience, “ they write, adding that the umbrella term ‘long COVID’ should be jettisoned in favour of different terms for specific after effects.

While the results of high quality population studies on ‘long COVID’ in adults and children have been reassuring, they point out, the body of research “is replete with studies with critical biases” they add, setting out common pitfalls... (MORE - missing details, no ads)

PAPER: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112338