You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Reliance on the highest-quality studies of Long Covid is appropriate and not evidence of bias
  1. Tracy Beth Høeg1,2,
  2. Shamez Ladhani3,4,
  3. Vinay Prasad1
  1. 1 Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2 Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  3. 3 Immunisation Department, Public Health England, London, UK
  4. 4 Centre for Neonatal and Paediatric Infection, St George’s University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vinay Prasad, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA; vinayak.prasad{at}ucsf.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112708

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.

    We want to thank Dr. Fanshawe for his letter.1 We believe we share the common goal of enhancing understanding of Long Covid so we can better estimate the burden, appropriately allocate healthcare provisions and improve patient care.

    To respond to his points in order, historical studies that employed a change in seropositivity status to distinguish infected cases from controls2 3 are expected to be more accurate than those relying on antigen or PCR test positivity alone. Studies using serology status minimise the bias created by misclassifying cases with mild or no symptoms as ‘uninfected controls.’ The studies cited in our paper4 ,2 3 that used serology were well-designed. They did not find a significant difference in prevalence of Long Covid between cases and controls, highlighting the very low risk of persistent symptoms after infection.

    The UK Office …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @tracybethhoeg, @ShamezLadhani, @VPrasadMDMPH

    • Contributors TBH wrote the initial draft. The draft was then reviewed and approved by SL and VP.

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

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles