Literature DB >> 35171956

Quality of life of COVID 19 patients after discharge: Systematic review.

H M R K G Nandasena1, M L Pathirathna1, A M M P Atapattu1, P T S Prasanga2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of COVID 19 on patients' quality of life (QOL) following discharge or recovery is essential for planning necessary interventions in advance. As such, this systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the QOL, and the factors associated with it in COVID-19 patients following discharge or recovery.
METHODS: The Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct were searched. The review included studies that (1) assessed the QOL of COVID 19 patients following discharge or recovery, (2) were written in English, (3) used a validated instrument to assess the quality of life and (4) used an observational or cohort study design. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Following the initial search, 2866 articles were identified as being related. A total of 1089 articles were identified as duplicates. 1694 studies were excluded during the title and abstract screening stage, and 83 studies were screened at the full-text screening stage. Finally, 21 studies were included in this systematic review.
RESULTS: This systematic review included 4408 patients who tested positive for COVID 19. Of them 50.2% (n = 2212) were males. Regardless of the time since discharge or recovery, COVID 19 patients' QOL has been significantly impacted. Female sex, older age, co-morbidities, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, prolonged ICU stay, and being mechanically ventilated were the most frequently reported factors associated with the low level of QOL.
CONCLUSION: The QOL of the post COVID19 patients was significantly impacted, regardless of the time elapses since discharge or recovery. Thus, when implementing programs to improve the QOL of post COVID19 patients, the most affected domains of QOL and associated factors should be considered.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2022        PMID： 35171956      PMCID： PMC8849513          DOI： 10.1371/journal.pone.0263941

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN： 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Background of the study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) is an infectious disease caused by novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), a member of the family Coronaviridae [1]. Fever, cough, sore throat, dyspnea, myalgia or fatigue are all common clinical manifestations of the disease [2]. Several studies have discovered that some of these manifestations persist in patients even after being discharged or recovered from the disease [3-6]. Patients experience significantly higher levels of post-traumatic stress symptoms and depression due to the disease’s novelty and the persistence of the symptoms [4, 7]. This has been severely affected to the patient’s quality of life (QOL). Clinically stable COVID 19 patients can also be presented with depressive symptoms and lower QOL after the recovery [8]. It is important and timely to ascertain the impact of COVID 19 on those affected to assist healthcare professionals and government agencies in providing them with better support in advance. QOL is a widely used indicator for assessing and evaluating one’s health and wellbeing. At least 150 different instruments are available to assess a person’s QOL. Of them, SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L are most widely used in different settings throughout the world [9]. In this context, studies on the QOL of COVID 19 patients following discharge or recovery has been grown very rapidly. Therefore, it is necessary and timely to compile global evidence on the QOL of COVID 19 patients following discharge or recovery. In light of this importance, this systematic review was conducted to pool the scientific evidence available on QOL and its factors associated with it among adult survivors of COVID 19, at different timelines.

Methods

This systematic review followed the updated guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the protocol of the study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021262639) on 30.07.2021.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included in the review if they (1) assessed the QOL among COVID 19 patients after the discharge or recovery, (2) were written in English, (3) used a validated instrument, and (4) used an observational or cohort study design. The studies that assessed the effectiveness of an intervention on QOL, were limited to children or people under the age 18 years of age and reported only the change in overall QOL rather than the various aspects, were excluded from this review. Besides, short abstracts, conference papers, reviews, viewpoints, short communications and preprints were excluded.

Search strategy

Databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct were searched from 01.11. 2019 to 31.06. 2021 using the combinations of keywords for QOL and COVID-19. The basic search strategy was built based on the research question formulation (PICO) and the search was done without restricting to a specific location to capture all the relevant titles. In order to identify the additional studies, a manual search was performed to identify the relevant studies included in reference lists of included studies and reviews. Medical subject headings (MeSH) were used where appropriate. Search terms were COVID 19 patients AND (“quality of life” OR “value of life” OR “quality of wellbeing” OR HRQOL OR “health related quality of life” OR “health quality of life” OR SF12 OR SF36 OR QOLIE).

Selection process and screening

The studies identified through the database search were first exported into EndNote X9 reference management software and the duplicates were removed through the same software. The processes of screening of the identified studies were done independently by two authors (HMRKGN and PTSP) at both stages of title and abstract screening and full-text screening using the Rayyan systematic review software. Any discrepancies at both stages were resolved by consensus or consulting a third reviewer.

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently (HMRKGN and PTSP) extracted the data from the included full texts into an excel sheet and cross-checked to ensure accuracy. Extracted information included the publication details (publication year, authors, country), study details (study design, setting, tools used for data collection), characteristics of the studied sample (age, sex, and sample size), QOL after the hospital discharge or recovery (mean value of total QOL, most affected domain and least affected domain), and factors associated with the low levels of QOL.

Assessment of the quality of the studies

Quality assessment of the included studies was done by two reviewers independently (HMRKGN and AMMPA), using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NHLBI) [10]. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus or by consulting a third reviewer. The quality assessment tool contained fourteen items including (1) Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (3) Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? (4) Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? (5) Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? (6) For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? (7) Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? (8) For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? (9) Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (10) Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? (11) Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (12) Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? (13) Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? (14) Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed after including and excluding studies based on the quality assessment. Each study was evaluated descriptively and presented in tabular form.

Ethical considerations

This study did not require ethical approval because this review was based on publicly available scientific literature.

Results

A total of 2866 studies were identified through the database search. After the duplicates were removed, there were 1777 studies for the title and abstract screening. 1694 studies were excluded during the title and abstract screening, and 83 studies were screened at the full-text screening stage. The final systematic review included only 21 studies [11-31] (Fig 1) and reasons for excluding full-texts were noted at the full-text screening stage.
Fig 1

Study selection.

Quality assessment of the studies

Out of the 14 criteria used to assess the quality of study three criteria were met by all the studies. The research question/objective, inclusion/ exclusion criteria, study population and the outcome measures were all clearly stated in all of the studies included in this review. The participation rates and the follow-up rates of the included studies were adequate. All studies were carried out during the pandemic period and outcomes were measured among COVID 19 patients after hospital discharge or recovery (Fig 2).
Fig 2

Quality assessment of the studies.

Characteristics of the included studies

The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 18 to 735, including a total of 4408 COVID 19 positive patients. Of the total number of patients, 50.2% (n = 2212) were males. Except for one study, all the other studies reported the mean age of the patients, and the age ranged from 41 to 74 years. Out of the total studies included, six studies [12, 14, 16, 21, 23, 28] were from Italy, three [13, 22, 31] from China, two from Spain [19, 27] and Norway [17, 30], and one each from Brazil [29], Lithuania [26], Nederland [20], Germany [15], France [18], Sweden [24], and Iran [11]. Another study [25] has been conducted as a global online survey. In the included studies, QOL was assessed using different tools, including the SF-36, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L, 15-D instrument and St George’s Respiratory questionnaire. The tools of SF-36 [13, 17, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31] and EQ-5D-5L [11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 30] were used by seven studies, while EQ-5D-3L was used by four studies [21, 25, 27, 29], SF-12 [19], and 15-D instrument [16] and St George’s Respiratory questionnaire [23] were used by one study. The assessment of QOL in the included studies was done at different stages following hospital discharge or recovery and it ranged from 15 days to six months. Four studies assessed the QOL of discharged or recovered patients at the third [16, 18, 22, 29] and the sixth months [15, 27, 30, 31] respectively. Two studies assessed the QOL in the same group at two different times [12, 14]. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1

Characteristics of the included studies.

No.Author, YearCountryType of studyParticipantsQOL
Sample sizeMean ageMaleFemaleMeasurement methodTime of assessment†
1.Wu et al., 2021ChinaCross sectional2763819SF-366 months
2.Santus et al., 2020ItalyCross sectional2055173St George’s Respiratory questionnaire15 days
3.Temperoni et al., 2021ItalyCross sectional104415648SF-361 month
4.Todt et al., 2021BrazilCohort study25154150101EQ-5D-3L3 months
5.Strumiliene et al., 2021LithuaniaCohort study51562526SF-362 months
6.Meys et al., 2020NederlandCross sectional2104526184EQ-5D-5L79 +-17 days
7.Arab-Zozani et al., 2020IranCross sectional40958247162EQ-5D-5L14 days to 30 days
8.Walle-Hansen et al., 2021NorwayCohort study1067460466 months
9.Qu et al., 2021ChinaCohort study540NR270270SF-363 months
10.Schandl et al., 2021SwedenCohort study113588627SF-36Between 2 to 7 months
11.Shah et al., 2021Multi-countryCross sectional73548172563EQ-5D-3L12.76 mean days (6.104)
12.Cinel et al., 2021ItalyCohort study2516217972EQ-5D-5L1 month and 3months
13.Garrigues et al., 2020FranceCross sectional120637545EQ-5D-5L100 days
14.Chen et al., 2020ChinaCohort study36147186175SF-361 month
15.Garratt et al., 2021NorwayCross sectional45850202256EQ-5D-5L4 months
16.Taboada et al., 2021SpainCross sectional91665932EQ-5D-3L6 months
17.Gamberini et al., 2021ItalyCross sectional278652067215-D instrument90 days
18.Carenzo et al., 2021ItalyCohort study47593710EQ-5D-5L2 months and 6 months
19.Mendez et al., 2021SpainCross sectional1795710574SF-122 months
20.Daher et al., 2021Germanyprospective study1861117EQ-5D-5L6 months
21.Monti et al., 2021ItalyCross sectional3956354EQ-5D-3L2 months

†After discharging from the hospital or after recovery.

†After discharging from the hospital or after recovery.

Quality of life

As the QOL was assessed using different tools in different studies, the results of this review are explained based on the type of QOL assessment tool. Out of the 21 studies, seven studies used SF-36 which is a very popular scale to measure QOL all over the world. It has eight subscales as physical functioning (PF), role physical (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF), role emotional (RE), and mental health (MH). Out of the seven studies that used SF-36, six reported the mean value for the total scores, ranging from 52.7 to 79.9. Of those, three studies reported the physical role as the least scored subscale of the SF-36, which means it is the most affected domain of the QOL. Five studies reported physical function as the highest scored subscale which means the least affected domain of QOL. Seven other studies reported QOL using the EQ-5D-5L scale, a valid and reliable scale with five subdimensions such as mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has five levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and extreme problems. Similar to EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L also has the same dimensions and each dimension has three levels: no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. In the present review, four studies used EQ-5D-3L scale to access the QOL. Therefore, altogether 11 studies out of 21 used EQ-5D scales. Out of the seven studies that used EQ-5D-5L, six reported a mean value for the total score ranging from 0.61 to 1.94. Nevertheless, the highest mean of the total score (1.94) was reported by a study done among patients aged >75 years. According to all the studies (11 studies) which used the EQ-5D scale, all studies identified the self-care domain as the domain with the least affected domain of QOL. Seven studies identified the pain/discomfort domain as the most affected domain of QOL. Other commonly affected domains were mobility and usual activities. Table 2 shows the details of QOL according to the different tools used.
Table 2

Mean scores of QOL reported in the included studies.

StudyMeasurement methodQOL total (Mean)Most affected domainLeast affected domain
Chen et al., 2020SF-3679.96Social functionPhysical function
Temperoni et al., 2021SF-3652.7Physical rolePhysical function
Strumiliene et al., 2021SF-36NRPhysical rolePhysical function
Schandl et al., 2021SF-3669Physical roleMental Health
Qu et al., 2021SF-3664.72Mental HealthPhysical function
Wu et al., 2021SF-3667.22Reported heath transitionRole emotional
Garratt et al., 2021SF-3674.07Energy/FatiguePhysical function
Arab-Zozani et al., 2020EQ-5D-5L0.61MobilitySelf-care
Daher et al., 2021EQ-5D-5L1.8MobilityAll other areas
Garrigues et al., 2020EQ-5D-5L0.86Pain/discomfortSelf-care
Cinel et al., 2021EQ-5D-5L1.26 at one month1.28 at three monthsPain/discomfortSelf-care
Meys et al., 2020EQ-5D-5L0.62Usual activitiesSelf-care
Carenzo et al., 2021EQ-5D-5LNR2 months: Usual activities6 months: Pain/discomfortSelf-care
Walle-Hansen et al., 2021EQ-5D-5L< 75 years = 1.67>75 years = 1.94<75 years: Pain/discomfort> 75 years: Usual activities<75 years: Self-care>75 years: Self-care
Taboada et al., 2021EQ-5D-3LNRPain/discomfortSelf-care
Monti et al., 2021EQ-5D-3LNRPain / discomfortSelf-care
Todt et al., 2021EQ-5D-3LNRPain / discomfortSelf-care
Shah et al., 2021EQ-5D-3L8.65Usual activitiesSelf-care
Mendez et al., 2021SF-1244Physical componentMental component
Santus et al., 2020St George’s Respiratory questionnaireNRActivity changeSocial and emotional impact
Gamberini et al., 202115-D instrument0.850Sexual activitiesHearing

Factors associated with the low level of quality of life

Out of the 21 studies included, ten studies identified factors associated with the low levels of QOL among discharged or recovered COVID 19 patients. Seven studies [11, 13, 16, 25, 27, 29, 30] identified that older age is associated with low levels of QOL while six studies [11, 13, 16, 22, 25, 29] identified that low levels of QOL are associated with the female sex. Admission to an ICU, prolonged mechanical ventilation or longer ICU stay are associated with a low level of QOL as reported by four studies [11, 16, 27, 29]. Furthermore, three studies [11, 16, 29] reported that the patients with other co-morbidities had lower levels of QOL than patients without any co-morbidity. Table 3 shows the factors associated with the low level of QOL.
Table 3

Factors associated with the low levels of QOL.

StudyAssociated factors
Todt et al., 2021Female sex, older age, Having diabetes and hypertension, Heart failure, Number of comorbidities, Highest respiratory support required, Intensive care admission, New onset hemodialysis, Longer duration of hospital stay,
Strumiliene et al., 2021Reduced lung function
Arab-Zozani et al., 2020Female sex, older age, Higher education level, Being unemployed, ICU admission, Having diabetes
Walle-Hansen et al., 2021Older age
Qu et al., 2021Female sex, older age, Poor hemoglobin and albumin level
Shah et al., 2021Female sex, Hospitalized survivors, Higher number of weeks since COVID 19 diagnosis
Chen et al., 2020Female sex, Older age, Severity of the clinical subtype, Higher length of hospital stay
Taboada et al., 2021Older age, Male sex, Use of mechanical ventilation during ICU stay, Higher duration of mechanical ventilation, Longer duration of ICU stay, Longer duration of hospital stay
Gamberini et al., 2021Female sex, Older age, Prolonged mechanical ventilation, Present with comorbidities
Mendez et al., 2021Neurocognitive impairment, Positive screening for psychiatric morbidity

Discussion

This systematic review presents the pooled results of published literature on QOL among COVID19 patients following the hospital discharge or recovery. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and of those, 12 studies were cross sectional, and nine were cohort studies. The present review included articles published from the beginning of the pandemic in December 2019 to July 2021. Although COVID 19 is a novel disease, there was a good representation of studies that assessed the QOL among COVID 19 patients with different characteristics at different time frames. The most common factors associated with a low level of QOL are female sex, older age, the presence of co-morbidities, ICU admission, prolonged ICU stay, and mechanical ventilation. Regardless of the time since discharge or recovery, QOL has been greatly affected. According to the studies done using SF-36, the most affected domain and least affected domain of the QOL were physical role and physical function, respectively. The studies which utilized the EQ-5D scale revealed that pain/discomfort was the most affected domain and self-care was the least affected domain of QOL. As the QOL had been measured using different tools in these studies, it was difficult to understand the most affected domain of the QOL considering the results of all the studies included in this review. Nevertheless, studies have found an excellent criterion validity between the EQ-5D subscales and SF-36 subscales [32]. A study done by Rowen et al., also suggested that models mapping the SF-36 onto the EQ-5D have similar predictions across inpatient and outpatient setting and medical conditions [33]. According to a study done by Hawthorne et al., the 15D instrument also demonstrated a good correlation with SF-36 [34]. Since most of the studies (18 studies) included in this review used SF-36 and EQ-5D tools to assess QOL, the reported changes of QOL of discharged or recovered COVID-19 patients might be collated. The most common factors associated with a low level of QOL are female sex, older age, the presence of co-morbidities, ICU admission, prolonged ICU stay, and mechanical ventilation. Most of the studies available in the literature to assess the sex differences in QOL have found that QOL is significantly lower among females than males [35, 36] and women’s mental health has been disproportionately impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic, even if they have not had COVID-19 [37]. Contrary to the findings reported by all these studies, only one study included in this review found that females had better QOL than males. Patients developing critical illness can have substantial attributable mortality rates and it may cause drastic changes in their QOL. Similar reviews conducted among patients after ICU discharge also found that the ICU survivors had significantly lower mean scores of QOL during the post-discharge follow-up [23, 38–40]. Therefore, it is clearly affirmed that the COVID 19 patients with ICU admission and longer duration of admission also reported low QOL after discharge compared to others.

Strengths and limitations

The key strength of this systematic review is that it was timely conducted 1.5 years following the pandemic, when many countries have conducted their studies to assess the QOL among COVID 19 patients after discharge or recovery. Though it was a short period, we found enough studies on QOL among COVID 19 patients. By including a variety of studies representing 11 countries in the world and COVID 19 patients with different characteristics and different time frames after discharge or recovery, the findings of this review can be generalized to explicit the QOL among COVID 19 patients after discharge or recovery. Furthermore, this review was conducted according to the international guidelines after obtaining the registration for the protocol in PROSPERO. There were several limitations. Firstly, the included studies in this review assessed the QOL using different tools, making it difficult to make a fair comparison. For the same reason, QOL was not presented quantitatively as a whole. Secondly, limiting the language to English may result in the omission of important findings reported in other languages. Finally, as the article search was done using only three databases, some relevant articles might have been missed. Considering all the limitations, the findings of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

QOL of the post COVID-19 patients was greatly affected, regardless of the time elapsed since discharge or recovery. Policymakers and healthcare providers must urgently investigate robust strategies for improving the QOL of post COVID-19 patients. Patients of older age, those with co-morbidities, those admitted to the ICU, those who stayed in ICU for a long time, and those who were mechanically ventilated have a higher risk of poor QOL following the infection. Healthcare providers should take extra precautions to improve their quality of life after the infection. Following recovery, women in particular, should receive additional attention because they are more likely to have poor QOL. Community-based healthcare programmes, at least via virtual forms, are recommended to improve the QOL of post COVID-19 patients and the most affected domains of QOL and the associated factors should be considered while implementing programmes.

PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX) Click here for additional data file.

Data extraction sheet.

(XLSX) Click here for additional data file. 24 Jan 2022
PONE-D-21-35133
Quality of life of COVID 19 patients after discharge: Systematic review
PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Nandsena, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 10 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. To reply to reviewers  comments point by point and to reflect it in the modified manuscript If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mohamed A Yassin, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” At this time, please address the following queries: a)        Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b)        State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c)        If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d)        If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I would first like to extend my admiration of their work to the authors. It is indeed a greatly written manuscript and analyzed work. -Some fine tuning of the contents is needed to strictly match the requirements of PLOS manuscript guidelines. -The one reservation I have, is the issue of ethical consideration. Though rarely discussed in the context of systematic reviews, I believe the authors should address the matter as it is associated with potential conflicts of interest and issues of data representation. -Additionally, it would be better to expand the conclusion segment to highlight how your review impacts current public health practice. Reviewer #2: This is a well-written paper, providing insight into the quality of life post-COVID 19. However, the following concerns will need to be addressed. 1. Grammatical errors/ incomplete sentences; ¶& both the pilcrow and ampersand symbols represent equal contribution to the work, you could stick to one. Will the use of female sex be more suitable compared with female gender? In the background; Clinically stable COVID 19 patients can also be presented with depressive symptoms and lower quality of life following recovery (doesn't read well). There are at least 150 instruments exist to assess a person's QOL...(check sentence). In this context, the research evidence on the QOL of COVID19 patients following discharge or recovery has grown at very rapidly. In the Quality assessment of the studies section; Out of 14 criteria used to assess the quality of a study were met by all the studies. (check wording). 2. Is there a numerical correlation between the EQ-5D subscales and the SF-36 subscales that you could include in the discussion? ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
27 Jan 2022 Thank you for giving the opportunity to revise the previous version of our manuscript. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions given by the reviewers. We believe that the manuscript is substantially improved after making the suggested revisions. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner including how and where the text was modified. Changes made in the manuscript are highlighted in the revised document. Submitted filename: Responses to the reviewer comments.docx Click here for additional data file. 31 Jan 2022 Quality of life of COVID 19 patients after discharge: Systematic review PONE-D-21-35133R1 Dear Dr. Nandasena, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Mohamed A Yassin, MD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript  is accepted for publication in its current  form Reviewers' comments: 4 Feb 2022 PONE-D-21-35133R1 Quality of life of COVID 19 patients after discharge: Systematic review Dear Dr. Nandasena: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Mohamed A Yassin Academic Editor PLOS ONE
  38 in total

Review 1.  Quality of life in adult survivors of critical illness: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  David W Dowdy; Mark P Eid; Artyom Sedrakyan; Pedro A Mendez-Tellez; Peter J Pronovost; Margaret S Herridge; Dale M Needham
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-04-01       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Postdischarge symptoms and rehabilitation needs in survivors of COVID-19 infection: A cross-sectional evaluation.

Authors:  Stephen J Halpin; Claire McIvor; Gemma Whyatt; Anastasia Adams; Olivia Harvey; Lyndsay McLean; Christopher Walshaw; Steven Kemp; Joanna Corrado; Rajinder Singh; Tamsin Collins; Rory J O'Connor; Manoj Sivan
Journal:  J Med Virol       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 2.327

Review 3.  Quality of life after intensive care: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Sandra G Oeyen; Dominique M Vandijck; Dominique D Benoit; Lieven Annemans; Johan M Decruyenaere
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 7.598

4.  Health-Related Quality of Life and its Associated Factors in COVID-19 Patients.

Authors:  Morteza Arab-Zozani; Fatemah Hashemi; Hossein Safari; Mahmood Yousefi; Hosein Ameri
Journal:  Osong Public Health Res Perspect       Date:  2020-10

5.  Physical and psychological sequelae at three months after acute illness in COVID-19 survivors.

Authors:  Rebecca DE Lorenzo; Elena Cinel; Marta Cilla; Nicola Compagnone; Marica Ferrante; Elisabetta Falbo; Alessandro Patrizi; Jacopo Castellani; Cristiano Magnaghi; Stefania L Calvisi; Teresa Arcidiacono; Chiara L Lanzani; Valentina Canti; Mario G Mazza; Sabina Martinenghi; Giordano Vitali; Francesco Benedetti; Fabio Ciceri; Caterina Conte; Patrizia Rovere Querini
Journal:  Panminerva Med       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 5.197

6.  Cardiac Involvement in Recovered Patients From COVID-19: A Preliminary 6-Month Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Wu; Ke-Qiong Deng; Chenze Li; Zhaoxia Yang; Huijuan Hu; Huanhuan Cai; Chao Zhang; Tao He; Fang Zheng; Hairong Wang; Xin A Zhang; Antoine Caillon; Yufeng Yuan; Xinghuan Wang; Haibo Xu; Zhibing Lu
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-05-13

7.  Gender differences in quality of life among community-dwelling older adults in low- and middle-income countries: results from the Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE).

Authors:  Kyung Hee Lee; Hanzhang Xu; Bei Wu
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.295

8.  'Long COVID': persistent COVID-19 symptoms in survivors managed in Lagos State, Nigeria.

Authors:  Bodunrin Osikomaiya; Olufemi Erinoso; Kikelomo Ololade Wright; Aina Olufemi Odusola; Babafemi Thomas; Oluwatosin Adeyemi; Abimbola Bowale; Olusola Adejumo; Ayodeji Falana; Ismail Abdus-Salam; Olusegun Ogboye; Akin Osibogun; Akin Abayomi
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2021-03-25       Impact factor: 3.090

Review 9.  The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity, and utilization.

Authors:  Carol S Burckhardt; Kathryn L Anderson
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-10-23       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence.

Authors:  Nina Vindegaard; Michael Eriksen Benros
Journal:  Brain Behav Immun       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 7.217
View more
  7 in total

1.  Perceived Symptoms, Mental Health and Quality of Life after Hospitalization in COVID-19 Patients.

Authors:  Evangelos C Fradelos; Stylianos Boutlas; Eleni Tsimitrea; Alexandra Sistou; Konstantinos Tourlakopoulos; Ioanna V Papathanasiou; Konstantinos I Gourgoulianis
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-04-30

2.  One-year follow-up of depression, anxiety, and quality of life of Peruvian patients who survived COVID-19.

Authors:  Jeff Huarcaya-Victoria; Christoper A Alarcon-Ruiz; William Barzola-Farfán; Claudia Cruzalegui-Bazán; Michaell Cabrejos-Espinoza; Gabriela Aspilcueta-Montoya; Feleydi Cornero-Quispe; Javier Salazar-Bellido; Beltrán Villarreal
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 3.440

3.  [A pending agenda on post-COVID-19 quality of life: Comments on the study by García et al., (2022)].

Authors:  J Moya-Salazar
Journal:  J Healthc Qual Res       Date:  2022-08-26

4.  Psychological Distress among Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Denmark during the First 12 Months of the Pandemic.

Authors:  Ellen Moseholm; Julie Midtgaard; Signe Bollerup; Ása D Apol; Oskar B Olesen; Sofie Jespersen; Nina Weis
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 4.614

5.  Lowered Quality of Life in Long COVID Is Predicted by Affective Symptoms, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Inflammation and Neuroimmunotoxic Pathways.

Authors:  Michael Maes; Haneen Tahseen Al-Rubaye; Abbas F Almulla; Dhurgham Shihab Al-Hadrawi; Kristina Stoyanova; Marta Kubera; Hussein Kadhem Al-Hakeim
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-19       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Proprietary Model of Qualification for In-Hospital Rehabilitation after COVID-19.

Authors:  Jan Szczegielniak; Anna Szczegielniak; Jacek Łuniewski; Katarzyna Bogacz
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 4.614

7.  Health-Related Quality of Life of Tuberculosis Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Conakry, Guinea: A Mixed Methods Study.

Authors:  Almamy Amara Touré; Aboubacar Sidiki Magassouba; Gnoume Camara; Abdoulaye Doumbouya; Diao Cissé; Ibrahima Barry; Lansana Mady Camara; Abdoul Habib Béavogui; Alexandre Delamou; Vanessa Veronese; Corinne Simone Merle; Hugues Asken Traoré; Adama Marie Bangoura
Journal:  Trop Med Infect Dis       Date:  2022-09-02
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.