Background There is emerging evidence of long-term sequelae in a considerable proportion of COVID-19 patients after recovery and the spectrum and severity of such sequelae should be systematically reviewed. This review aims to evaluate the available evidence of all intermediate and long-term COVID-19 sequelae affecting formerly healthy adults. Methods A systematic literature search of Embase, WHO, Scopus, Pubmed, Litcovid, bioRxiv and medRxiv was conducted with a cutoff date of the 17th September 2020 according to PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020208725). Search terms included “COVID-19”, “coronavirus disease 2019”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “sequelae” and “consequence*”. Publications on adult participants, with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Elderly (>50 years old) and children (<18 years old) were excluded. Bias assessment was performed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results A total of 31 papers were included. Study types included prospective and retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and case reports. Sequelae persistence since infection spanned 14 days to three months. Sequelae included persistent fatigue (39-73% of assessed persons), breathlessness (39-74%), decrease in quality of life (44-69%), impaired pulmonary function, abnormal CT findings including pulmonary fibrosis (39-83%), evidence of peri-/perimyo-/myocarditis (3-26%), changes in microstructural and functional brain integrity with persistent neurological symptoms (55%), increased incidence of psychiatric diagnoses (5.8% versus 2.5-3.4% in controls), incomplete recovery of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (33-36% of evaluated persons). Conclusions A variety of organ systems are affected by COVID-19 in the intermediate and longer-term after recovery. Main sequelae include post-infectious fatigue, persistent reduced lung function and carditis. Careful follow-up post COVID 19 is indicated to assess and mitigate possible organ damage and preserve life quality.

Many countries provide dietary guidelines for health practitioners and/or the general population. However, there is no general, international guideline serving as a template for national dietary guidelines, and there is little to no consensus regarding reference values for different nutrients. The present review compared 27 national dietary guidelines for healthy adults as well as for pregnant and/or breastfeeding women, and analysed their quality and the evidence behind their recommendations. The guidelines were evaluated for their quality using the instrument Agree II, and found to be heterogeneous (overall quality score 14%–100%) and often insufficient (quality score &lt; 50%) due to missing information about their methodology and sources of evidence. We analysed the evidence (number of studies, study types and publication years) of reference values of a number of nutrients using the five guidelines that provided the highest scores in the Agree II assessment. The reference values varied among guidelines, were rarely based on up-to-date meta-analyses, and were often based on insufficiently reported evidence (22/27 guidelines with quality score &lt; 50%). We recommend systematic reviews of high quality studies to formulate future guidelines, and to use guidelines on how to write guidelines.