The UCLA study shows that variable definitions make a long time more difficult to diagnose and treat

What is a long covid? For example, Despite hundreds of published studies and millions affected worldwide, the medical field still has no clear response. For example. However. Consequently,

New research from the UCLA reveals that the definition of the long cocoan varies so largely according to published studies that the percentage of people identified as having the disease can differ considerably. Furthermore, which makes patient treatment and progress in advancement more difficult. Therefore,

The study. Furthermore. Meanwhile. Therefore, published on August 12 Jama Network OpenUnderline how much the lack of standard definition is disturbing our understanding of the long covid. Nevertheless,

The results highlight the need for a standard definition for a long cocoat. Similarly. Consequently. However, Up to a third of the variation in published studies can arise ucla study shows variable definitions new from the fact ucla study shows variable definitions new that they ucla study shows variable definitions use different. For example, definitions for a large covid. Similarly, “”

Lauren Wisk, main study, assistant professor of medicine in the general research division of internal medicine and health services, David Geffen School of Medicine of the UCLA

Using data of 4,700 American patients in the Inspire Cohort funded by the CDC, UCLA researchers applied five long rib definitions published from studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and Puerto Rico. The result? According to the definition of the definition. the estimated prevalence of the long coide varied from 15% to 42% – all in the same group of patients.

The five definitions evaluated in the study differ in the duration of the symptoms (4 weeks to 6 months). the number of ucla study shows variable definitions new symptoms considered (9 to 44). which led to the ucla study shows variable definitions new reported prevalence of the long cochem which varied from. ucla study shows variable definitions 2.6% to 61.9% in original studies. When these different definitions published were applied to the Inspire cohort. these differences have also created a significant variation in which was labeled as a long coco.

The researchers also found that the published definitions had only a moderate sensitivity – the ability to correctly identify. people with the disease in relation to the self -disclary experience of long -term participants. Although the specificity of these definitions is better. none of the definitions has reached an ideal level to be considered the optimal identification test.

“If each study on the Grande Covid uses a different definition to identify who has it. scientific conclusions become more difficult to compare between studies and can lead to ucla study shows variable definitions new delays in our understanding,” said Wisk. “In the absence of an objective measure. such as ucla study shows variable definitions new a blood test. a uniform standard to measure for a long time. researchers ucla study shows variable definitions and clinicians will have to decide which definition is best suited to their scientific question and be more transparent as to the potential limits of the use of a more restrictive definition. »»

These differences can lead researchers. doctors to miss long cases of very long cases. to label certain patients as having a long characteristic when they do not, said Dr. Joann Elmore. professor of medicine in the general research division of internal medicine. health services at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the UCLA and the main author of the study.

“Without a clinically usable. standardized research definition of the long covid, it is as if each ucla study shows variable definitions new study uses a different measurement stick,” she said. “It makes it difficult to compare results, develop treatments or follow progress. Without ucla study shows variable definitions new a shared definition, we risk deceiving patients and deceiving care. It is more than an academic ucla study shows variable definitions debate – it affects real people. »»

The limits of the study include a potential recall bias among participants. The demographic data of the participants who may have influenced the prevalence were not examined. the results may have deferred if the researchers have included more than the five studies published in their analysis.

The co-authors of the study are Michelle L’Hommedieu. Kate Diaz Roldan of the UCLA, and others of the Inspire group.

Inspire was funded by the National Center of Immunization. Respiratory Diseases (75D30120C08008) in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.