Background : Single studies support the presence of several post-COVID-19 symptoms; however, no meta-analysis differentiating hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients has been published to date. This meta-analysis analyzes the prevalence of post-COVID-19 symptoms in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients recovered from COVID-19 . Methods : MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers were searched up to March 15, 2021. Peer-reviewed studies or preprints reporting data on post-COVID-19 symptoms collected by personal, telephonic or electronic interview were included. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used a random-effects models for meta-analytical pooled prevalence of each post-COVID-19 symptom, and I² statistics for heterogeneity. Data synthesis was categorized at 30days, 60days, and ≥90 days after . Results : From 15,577 studies identified, 29 peer-reviewed studies and 4 preprints met inclusion criteria. The sample included 15,244 hospitalized and 9,011 non-hospitalized patients. The methodological quality of most studies was fair. The results showed that 63.2%, 71.9% and 45.9% of the sample exhibited ≥one post-COVID-19 symptom at 30, 60, or ≥90days after onset/hospitalization. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent symptoms with a pooled prevalence ranging from 35% to 60% depending on the follow-up. Other post-COVID-19 symptoms included cough (20-25%), anosmia (10-20%), ageusia (15-20%) or joint pain (15-20%). Time trend analysis revealed a decreased prevalence 30days after with an increase after 60days . Conclusion : This meta-analysis shows that post-COVID-19 symptoms are present in more than 60% of patients infected by SARS-CoV‑2. Fatigue and dyspnea were the most prevalent post-COVID-19 symptoms, particularly 60 and ≥90 days after.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Background Headache is identified as a common post‐COVID sequela experienced by COVID‐19 survivors. The aim of this pooled analysis was to synthesize the prevalence of post‐COVID headache in hospitalized and non‐hospitalized patients recovering from SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Methods MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, as well as medRxiv and bioRxiv preprint servers, were searched up to 31 May 2021. Studies or preprints providing data on post‐COVID headache were included. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Random effects models were used for meta‐analytical pooled prevalence of post‐COVID headache. Data synthesis was categorized at hospital admission/symptoms' onset, and at 30, 60, 90, and ≥180 days afterwards. Results From 9573 studies identified, 28 peer‐reviewed studies and 7 preprints were included. The sample was 28,438 COVID‐19 survivors (12,307 females; mean age: 46.6, SD: 17.45 years). The methodological quality was high in 45% of the studies. The overall prevalence of post‐COVID headache was 47.1% (95% CI 35.8–58.6) at onset or hospital admission, 10.2% (95% CI 5.4–18.5) at 30 days, 16.5% (95% CI 5.6–39.7) at 60 days, 10.6% (95% CI 4.7–22.3) at 90 days, and 8.4% (95% CI 4.6–14.8) at ≥180 days after onset/hospital discharge. Headache as a symptom at the acute phase was more prevalent in non‐hospitalized (57.97%) than in hospitalized (31.11%) patients. Time trend analysis showed a decreased prevalence from the acute symptoms’ onset to all post‐COVID follow‐up periods which was maintained afterwards. Conclusion This meta‐analysis found that the prevalence of post‐COVID headache ranged from 8% to 15% during the first 6 months after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.

Our aim was to evaluate the effect of dry needling alone as compared to sham needling, no intervention, or other physical interventions applied over trigger points (TrPs) related with neck pain symptoms. Randomized controlled trials including one group receiving dry needling for TrPs associated with neck pain were identified in electronic databases. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain-related disability, pressure pain thresholds, and cervical range of motion. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score were used to assessed risk of bias (RoB) and methodological quality of the trials. The quality of evidence was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Between-groups mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated (3) Twenty-eight trials were finally included. Dry needling reduced pain immediately after (MD −1.53, 95% CI −2.29 to −0.76) and at short-term (MD −2.31, 95% CI −3.64 to −0.99) when compared with sham/placebo/waiting list/other form of dry needling and, also, at short-term (MD −0.51, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.06) compared with manual therapy. No differences in comparison with other physical therapy interventions were observed. An effect on pain-related disability at the short-term was found when comparing dry needing with sham/placebo/waiting list/other form of dry needling (SMD −0.87, 95% CI −1.60 to −0.14) but not with manual therapy or other interventions. Dry needling was effective for improving pressure pain thresholds immediately after the intervention (MD 55.48 kPa, 95% CI 27.03 to 83.93). No effect on cervical range of motion of dry needling against either comparative group was found. No between-treatment effect was observed in any outcome at mid-term. Low to moderate evidence suggests that dry needling can be effective for improving pain intensity and pain-related disability in individuals with neck pain symptoms associated with TrPs at the short-term. No significant effects on pressure pain sensitivity or cervical range of motion were observed. Registration number: OSF Registry—https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P2UWD.