Fatigue outcomes following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2023 Poole-Wright, Chalder et al

Abstract
Objectives Fatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors.

Methods Embase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and I2 statistic. Egger’s tests for publication bias.

Results Database searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (−0.057, 95% CI: −107 to −0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger’s test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress.

Conclusion This study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/4/e063969

 

they did a similar review in 2020
https://www.s4me.info/threads/fatig...w-and-meta-analysis-2020-chalder-et-al.18151/

 

It's outrageous that useless studies like this keep getting funded. So far over 90% of LC studies have been completely useless, looking at the wrong things, or not really looking at anything. It basically acts like a jobs program. This pretender, Chalder, supposedly has decades of experience with this, and approaches it as if she were brand new to the issue, which she may as well be. Just mindlessly generic and far less informed than the average patient.

Of course the high recovery rates completely debunk all the BPS claims, and make every claim of recovery from a treatment massively unlikely to be real, but nothing changes anyway, they still put the reflexive "must be mental health" because no one in this damn system seems able to give a damn about anything but their own career advancement.

 

I’d go so far as the issue being useless people getting funded because some of it is in the workload model for a role I assume is tenured. Some of it should look at how bad someone’s research has been the past on basic quality and require said people will only get funded if they demonstrate significant retraining and that they can and will produce of quality. Track record needs to be looked at. Not assumed ‘last chance they’ll change’ stuff. They won’t unless that change has to come first and be proven has been demonstrated.

The academic sector needs to bring back something that measures and throws out stuff that isn’t of barrel scraping minimum quality because it’s a joke being able to call it research just for writing a large enough number of words in a piece of paper.

Then if there is teaching or clinical based on it then you’ve got those problem attitudes and behaviours being ‘taught forward’ like huring a truanter or someone who always submitted terrible work at school to teach the next generation without requiring them to show they produce something different do they assume it’s on the basis of that.

oh and can then remove the people who are getting paid but not turning out stuff that meets basic quality on these areas that are part of the job.

it’s called and part of professionalism in most areas that get to use that term and the point being people get chucked out of it in order to maintain the supposed quality of safety mark and standards associated with working in said profession explicitly by doing so and preventing entry for those who don’t and removing those who don’t ?