You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 29, Issue 3
  • Correspondence on “How methodological pitfalls have created widespread misunderstanding about long COVID” by Høeg et al

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Correspondence on “How methodological pitfalls have created widespread misunderstanding about long COVID” by Høeg et al
  1. Thomas R Fanshawe
  1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas R Fanshawe, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK; thomas.fanshawe{at}phc.ox.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112675

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Høeg et al have written an opinion piece about what they consider to be the methodological limitations of some epidemiological studies into long COVID.1

    Some of these points, such as the need for a specific case definition and the need for adequate control group selection, are common to all epidemiological research and are certainly limitations of some of the published studies in this area.

    However, the authors also make some statements that are factually incorrect, such as claiming that studies might use “serology to confirm prior infection, which can be done at any time”, they later contradict this themselves, in the section 'Sampling bias'. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors The author was the sole contributor.

    • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests The author is a researcher at the University of Oxford and is living with long COVID.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles