Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287554. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287554

COVID-19 symptom load as a risk factor for chronic pain: A national cross-sectional study

Jamie L Romeiser 1,*, Christopher P Morley 1, Sunitha M Singh 2,3
Editor: Dong Keon Yon4
PMCID: PMC10289324  PMID: 37352207

Abstract

Introduction

Emerging evidence suggests that a COVID-19 infection with a high initial severity may be associated with development of long-COVID conditions such as chronic pain. At the population level, it is unknown if severity of a COVID-19 infection might be a new risk factor for chronic pain above and beyond the traditional slate of pre-established risk factors. The purpose of this study is to examine whether COVID-19 severity of infection may be a new risk factor for chronic pain.

Methods

Using data from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (n = 15,335), this study examined the adjusted odds of experiencing high frequency levels of pain in the past 3 months for those who reported no/mild symptoms from a COVID-19 infection, and those reporting moderate/severe symptoms from COVID-19, compared to those never infected. A 1:1:1 propensity score matched analysis was also performed to examine the odds of pain.

Results

Prevalence of pain was higher in the moderate/severe symptom group compared to the no infection group (25.48% vs 19.44%, p <0.001). Both the adjusted model (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09, 1.51) and matched model (OR = 1.45, CI = 1.14, 1.83) revealed higher odds of pain for those with moderate/high COVID-19 symptoms compared to no infection.

Conclusions

A moderate/highly symptomatic COVID-19 infection may be a new risk factor for chronic pain. As the absolute number of severe COVID-19 infections continues to rise, overall prevalence of chronic pain may also increase. While knowledge continues to unfold on long-haul symptoms, prevention of severe infections remains essential.

Introduction

The long-term effects of COVID-19 on the body is a growing public health issue. As of March 2023, approximately 760 million confirmed cases coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been documented globally, including 6.87 million deaths [1]. Survivors of COVID-19 may experience what has been referred to as a ‘constellation’ of lingering symptoms or conditions even after clearance of the virus. These symptoms and conditions can present for different lengths of time. Symptoms that persist longer than three months, and that did not exist prior to contracting the virus, are known as long-COVID symptoms [2].

The prevalence of long-COVID may be underestimated. In June 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics estimated that 19% of those who had COVID-19 in the past also had lingering symptoms, with 7.5% of all adults in the US reporting long-COVID symptoms [3]. However, a recent meta-analysis found that 45% of COVID-19 survivors reported at least one lingering symptom [4]. While there is still debate amongst the literature to define significant and reliable predictors of long-COVID [5], hospitalization [6] and the presence of a more severe initial symptom load [7] may be linked to persistence of residual symptoms. Notably, amongst separate hospitalized and non-hospitalized population analyses, one of the top five reported long-COVID symptoms was pain [4].

The exact underlying biological mechanism(s) of long-COVID pain and painful manifestations remains unclear, but it could include direct and indirect damage by the virus [8]. Long-COVID chronic pain has been linked to severity of initial symptom load [2, 9]. With lingering chronic pain as prevalent long-COVID symptom, then it’s conceivable to think that COVID-infection and symptom load may arise as a new determinant of chronic pain.

Chronic pain is a significant public health issue [10]. Approximately 20% of adults suffer from chronic pain [11, 12], which is widely defined as frequent pain that lasts for at least three months [1215]. Socioeconomic status and education levels are often inversely associated with pain [16, 17], whereas age and body mass index are positively associated with pain frequency [13, 16, 17]. Race, gender, and presence of comorbid conditions such as cancer, inflammatory diseases, and diabetes, are commonly linked to chronic pain in population-based studies [16, 17]. With widespread history of COVID-19 infection following a years-long pandemic, the addition of COVID-19 as a new predictor of chronic pain would be a significant contribution to the slate of risk factors and moderators that are already known. Further, the impact of symptom severity on the likelihood of later reported pain would be a useful predictor of long-COVID in patients.

To our knowledge, there are no population-based studies that examine the role of severity of COVID-19 infection as a determinant of chronic pain, above and beyond the traditional risk factors for chronic pain. Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2021 data, the aim of this study is to investigate the association between a COVID-19 diagnosis and severity of initial symptoms, and self-reported daily pain.

Methods

This study was conducted using data from the 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, n = 29,482) [18]. The NHIS is a nationally representative survey of the non-institutionalized United States population. Detailed information on the survey design, implementation, data collection, application of survey weights, and access to the data may be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/index.htm. Briefly, this annual, cross-sectional household survey was performed by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Geographic cluster sampling techniques are used to select participants 18 years of age and older for face-to-face interviews. Multi-level sampling methods are deployed to ensure the each month of data collection is representative of the United States populations [18]. Survey data collection protocols are approved by the NCHS Ethics Review board as a public health surveillance activity (#2019–09 National Health Interview Survey). Data are deidentified and made publicly available, therefore, University specific IRB review is exempt for this study.

Inclusion criteria

Participants included in this study were at least 18 years of age. Individuals who did not have pain data, and individuals who reported never taking a COVID-19 test in the past were excluded. Because of the potential to confound the results, individuals who were involved in an accident in the past 3 months were excluded from the analysis.

Primary outcome

The primary outcome of this study was frequency of pain, assessed in the NHIS survey as: “In the past three months, how often did you have pain?” Responses were dichotomized as never having pain or reporting some days with pain, and pain on most days or every day. This classification is consistent with prior literature to indicate those suffering from chronic pain [1214].

Primary predictor

Individuals were classified into three groups based on COVID-19 testing status and symptom status. Individuals who had reported having taken a COVID-19 test in the past, testing negative, and never having a diagnosis of COVID-19 by a medical professional were considered to be COVID-19 negative. Those who had reported ever taking a COVID-19 test and testing positive were additionally asked to report the worst level of their COVID-19 related symptoms. These participants were then divided into symptom load groups: those who reported being asymptomatic or reported mild symptoms, and those who reported moderate or severe symptoms. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to ensure these groupings were appropriate. This was done by first examining the distribution in covariates and pain scores for participants in the asymptomatic group versus mild symptoms group. These two groups were found to be similar to one another, which would indicate that neither group alone would drive the analysis results. We also examined the distribution in covariates and pain scores for participants in the moderate symptoms group versus severe symptoms groups, and found similar results, thereby confirming the appropriateness of the symptomatic groups.

Covariates

Established predictors of pain, and predictors of both pain and early pandemic diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified [57, 9, 13, 16, 17]. Socio-demographic variables included age (recategorized into decades), sex (male, female), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Asian, Hispanic, other single or multiple races), education (high school graduate or less, some college but no degree, academic or vocational Associates degree, Bachelor’s degree, higher degree), BMI (underweight, normal weight, overweight, obese), and poverty income ratio (defined as the ratio of family income to poverty threshold, which was further classified to around or below the poverty line [PIR 0–1.24], medium income [PIR 1.25–2.99] and high income [PIR 3+]). Chronic or comorbid variables included weak immune system due to health conditions, prior diagnosis of diabetes, self-reported difficulty walking, and prior diagnosis of chronic inflammation (arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia).

Statistical analysis

Complex survey weights were applied to all analyses to account for the complex survey design. Categorical variables are reported as unweighted frequencies and percents within Table 1. Weighted proportions (i.e., the application of the complex survey weights) are reported both in the tables and described within the narrative. Missing data were minimal (3.3%), and therefore not imputed. Complex survey weights were used for all inferential analyses. Bivariate associations with pain were assessed using chi-square tests and logistic regression for main predictor and all covariates. All variables were found to be significantly associated with pain, and included in an adjusted multiple logistic regression model.

Table 1. Demographic and clinical characteristics.

Characteristics Unweighted Weighted
N % %
COVID-19
 No Infection 12131 79.11% 76.74%
 COVID+, Asymptomatic/Mild 1440 9.39% 10.66%
 COVID+, Moderate/Severe 1764 11.50% 12.60%
Age Decades
 18–29 2327 15.21% 22.53%
 30–39 2733 17.87% 18.08%
 40–49 2444 15.98% 16.76%
 50–59 2506 16.38% 16.03%
 60–69 2611 17.07% 14.20%
 70–79 1868 12.21% 8.88%
 80+ 808 5.28% 3.62%
Sex
 Female 8585 55.99% 53.34%
 Male 6749 44.01% 46.66%
Race Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic White 9837 64.15% 60.53%
 Non-Hispanic Black 1824 11.89% 12.75%
 Hispanic 2377 15.50% 18.67%
 Asian 912 5.95% 6.00%
 Other single or multiple races 385 2.51% 2.46%
Education
 HS Graduate or less 4639 30.39% 34.77%
 Some College, no degree 2309 15.13% 15.41%
 Associates (academic or vocational) 1887 12.36% 11.39%
 Bachelor’s Degree 3885 25.45% 24.03%
 Higher Degree 2543 16.66% 14.41%
Poverty Income Ratio
 0–1.24 (low) 1973 12.87% 13.27%
 1.25–2.99 (middle income) 4274 27.87% 28.47%
 3.0–5 (high income) 9088 59.26% 58.26%
BMI
 Underweight 226 1.51% 1.72%
 Healthy weight 4702 31.38% 31.10%
 Over weight 5150 34.37% 33.92%
 Obese 4905 32.73% 33.26%
Chronic Inflammation Diagnosis 3665 23.92% 19.64%
Weakened Immune System 812 5.31% 4.79%
Diabetes 1506 9.83% 8.96%
Difficulty Walking / Functional Limitations
 No/Some 14554 94.93% 96.02%
 A lot/Cannot walk 778 5.07% 3.98%
Presence of Chronic Pain
 No 11965 78.02% 80.34%
 Yes 3370 21.98% 19.66%

HS = High School; BMI = Body Mass Index

To further examine the association between COVID-19 symptom load and pain, a 1:1:1 propensity score matched analysis was performed. In brief, a propensity score is the probability of receiving a treatment/exposure conditioned upon a set of observable characteristics [19]. Propensity score matching is a technique used to balance uneven distributions of covariates across treatment groups in observational data [20]. The goal is to obtain treatment/exposure groups with no significant discernable differences in observable covariates between the primary exposure groups, similar to what is achieved through the process of randomization [21, 22]. In this case, there was a significant imbalance of covariates among the three COVID-19 groups, and propensity score matching was implemented to decrease potential confounding. In this study, a three-way matched sample was chosen using an overlapping pairwise approach [23]. Each COVID-19 group contrast was examined for possible overlapping matches (i.e., COVID-19 negative vs low symptom load, COVID-19 negative vs high symptom load, and low symptom versus high symptom). Propensity score matching models were constructed using all covariates from the adjusted model. Matching was performed using the PSMATCH procedure in SAS software, with a greedy-nearest neighbor approach without replacement, and a caliper width of 0.15 the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. Original survey weights were preserved [24]. A final covariate balance assessment was performed to ensure covariates were balanced amongst all three matched COVID-19 groups (S1 Table). All group and variable level contrasts demonstrated an absolute standardized mean difference of <0.1, indicating negligible differences in covariates. Upon demonstration of covariate balance, a final weighted logistic regression model was performed to examine the association between COVID-19 status/symptom load and pain in the matched data. All analyses were performed using SAS © 9.4 software (Cary, NC).

Results

A total of 15,335 individuals met the inclusion criteria, representing approximately 135.7 million US adult citizens. A total of 12,131 reported never testing positive for COVID-19 (76.74%), 1440 reported testing positive with mild/no symptoms (10.66%), and 1764 reported testing positive with moderate or severe symptoms (12.60%) (Table 1). Those reporting no/infrequent pain encompassed 80.34% of the sample (n = 11,965), with 19.66% reporting frequent (chronic) pain (n = 3370).

In unadjusted analyses, there was a significant difference in prevalence of frequent pain by COVID-19 symptom group (Chi-Square p <0.001). Of those who never contracted COVID-19, 19.44% reported frequent pain. Only 14.36% of who were asymptomatic or had mild symptoms reported frequent pain, whereas 25.48% of those with moderate/severe symptoms reported frequent pain.

Adjusted regression

All covariates were also independently associated with pain [Table 2]. After controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, BMI, poverty income ratio, compromised immune system, diabetes, self-reported difficulty walking, and chronic inflammation in a multiple logistic regression model–those who had moderate or severe symptoms during their COVID-19 infection were 1.28 times more likely to report being in pain most/every day in the past 3 months compared to the no infection group (OR: 1.28, CI: 1.09, 1.51) (Table 2). Interestingly, those who were asymptomatic or reported mild symptoms were less likely to report pain in the past 3 months compared to the no infection group (OR: 0.81, CI: 0.69, 0.96). Adjusted probabilities are presented in Fig 1A, demonstrating that the adjusted probability of chronic pain was approximately 4 percentage points higher amongst those who had a higher COVID-19 symptom load compared to those who had not contracted COVID-19 (20% vs. 16%, respectively).

Table 2. Unadjusted and adjusted (weighted) logistic regression predicting chronic pain.

Predictors of Chronic Pain Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) p-value Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) p-value
COVID-19
 No Infection Reference Reference
 COVID+, Asymptomatic/Mild 0.70 (0.59, 0.81) <0.0001 0.81 (0.69, 0.96) 0.02
 COVID+, Moderate/Severe 1.42 (1.24, 1.62) <0.0001 1.28 (1.09, 1.51) 0.002
Age Decades
 18–29 Reference Reference
 30–39 1.62 (1.32, 1.99) <0.0001 1.45 (1.17, 1.79) <0.0001
 40–49 2.60 (2.12, 3.20) <0.0001 2.04 (1.64, 2.54) <0.0001
 50–59 4.07 (3.36, 4.92) <0.0001 2.30 (1.87, 2.83) <0.0001
 60–69 4.48 (3.71, 5.39) <0.0001 1.93 (1.56, 2.38) <0.0001
 70–79 4.92 (4.03, 6.00) <0.0001 1.70 (1.36, 2.13) <0.0001
 80+ 5.41 (4.25, 6.89) <0.0001 1.53 (1.14, 2.05) 0.005
Sex
 Female 1.14 (1.04, 1.24) <0.01 1.00 (0.91, 1.13) 0.85
 Male Reference Reference
Race Ethnicity
 Non-Hispanic White Reference Reference
 Non-Hispanic Black 0.75 (0.65, 0.87) <0.0001 0.61 (0.51, 0.72) <0.0001
 Hispanic 0.61 (0.53, 0.70) <0.0001 0.61 (0.51, 0.72) <0.0001
 Asian 0.27 (0.21, 0.36) <0.001 0.40 (0.29, 0.54) <0.0001
 Other single or multiple races 1.04 (0.77, 1.40) 0.81 1.14 (0.80, 1.63) 0.46
Education
 HS Graduate or less 1.79 (1.55, 2.06) <0.0001 1.37 (1.15, 1.64) <0.001
 Some College, no degree 1.69 (1.44, 1.99) <0.0001 1.58 (1.30, 1.91) <0.0001
 Associates (academic or vocational) 2.28 (1.93, 2.69) <0.0001 1.90 (1.57, 2.30) <0.0001
 Bachelor’s Degree 1.14 (0.98, 1.32) 0.09 1.17 (0.99, 1.38) 0.07
 Higher Degree Reference Reference
Poverty Income Ratio
 0–1.24 (low) Reference Reference
 1.25–2.99 (middle income) 0.79 (0.68, 0.91) <0.01 0.77 (0.64, 0.91) 0.003
 3.0–5 (high income) 0.56 (0.49, 0.65) <0.0001 0.60 (0.50, 0.71) <0.0001
Body Mass Index
 Underweight 1.20 (0.79, 1.82) 0.38 1.12 (0.69, 1.83) 0.65
 Healthy weight Reference Reference
 Over weight 1.36 (1.20, 1.54) <0.0001 1.09 (0.95, 1.25) 0.24
 Obese 2.17 (1.92, 2.45) <0.0001 1.38 (1.20, 1.59) <0.0001
Arthritis Diagnosis 6.99 (6.32, 7.74) <0.0001 4.32 (3.82, 4.88) <0.0001
Weakened Immune System 3.72 (3.11, 4.44) <0.0001 1.95 (1.58, 2.40) <0.0001
Diabetes 2.61 (2.28, 2.99) <0.0001 1.25 (1.05, 1.47) 0.01
Difficulty Walking / Functional Limitations
 No/Some Reference Reference
 A lot/Cannot walk 12.37 (10.22, 14.97) <0.0001 5.03 (3.98, 6.35) <0.0001

Adjusted model C-Index = 0.78. CI = Confidence Interval; HS = High School

Fig 1. Predicted probabilities of pain by COVID-19 symptom group.

Fig 1

After adjusting for multiple covariates, COVID-19 symptom group was found to be significantly associated with pain. While those with moderate/severe symptoms had a higher probability of pain, those who were asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic had a lower probability of pain compared to those who were never infected (Panel A). After matched pairing on multiple covariates, only those in the higher symptomatic group had a significantly different (higher) probability of pain compared to those never infected (Panel B). * Indicates p-value = 0.02; ** Indicates p-value of <0.01.

Propensity score matched analysis

There were significant imbalances of covariates within the COVID-19 symptom groups (S1 Table). For example, as education levels increased, the proportion of those who did not contract COVID-19 also increased. A similar relationship was found with poverty income ratio, with those in the higher income group having a lower likelihood of contracting COVID-19. Those in the lower symptom group appeared to have fewer comorbidities and were younger compared to those who never contracted COVID-19. Many of the established risk factors of pain were also associated with COVID-19 infection. Therefore, a pairwise propensity score matching process was used to select matched participants within the three COVID-19 groups, matching on all covariates listed above. After propensity score matching, all three groups were balanced in terms of their distribution of covariates (S1 Table). Otherwise said, after matching, there were no significant differences between the three matched COVID-19 groups in terms of age, sex, race, education, BMI, PIR, and additional comorbidities. Each COVID-19 group contained 1223 participants, for a total matched sample size of 3669 participants.

After matching, the odds of pain in the moderate/severe group strengthened slightly compared to the adjusted model (OR: 1.45 [CI: 1.14, 1.83], p = 0.002) (Table 3), and the predicted probability of pain was approximately 6 percentage points higher amongst the high symptom group (22% vs 16%, Fig 1B). The odds of pain for the mild/asymptomatic group became insignificant compared to the no infection group (0.86 [CI: 0.68, 1.09], p = 0.20).

Table 3. Matched logistic regression predicting pain.

COVID-19 Group Odds Ratio (95% CI) P-Value
No Infection Reference
COVID+, Asymptomatic/Mild 0.86 (0.68, 1.09) 0.20
COVID+, Moderate/Severe 1.45 (1.14, 1.83) 0.002

CI = Confidence Interval

Discussion

As the number of people who contract COVID-19 continues to rise, it becomes increasingly important to quantify the burden of long-term effects on the population. In our study, those who experienced a higher COVID-19 symptom burden also had a higher prevalence of chronic pain. At the population level, even after adjusting for a multitude of risk factors, COVID-19 severity was significantly associated with chronic pain. The adjusted predicted probability of pain rose from 16% in those who never tested positive for COVID-19, to 20% in those with a high COVID-19 symptom burden.

Chronic pain is a significant public health issue [10, 25]. Global prevalence estimates of adults who suffer from chronic pain can range, but likely fall around 20% [11]. This estimate is consistent with our sample wherein the overall prevalence of pain (on most days or every day) was approximately 20%. Our findings contrasted another study conducted using 2020 NHIS data [7]. This study similarly examined the outcome of pain for different COVID-19 symptomatic loads, but respondents were over 65, and results were not adjusted for covariates. In our study, as with prior studies, socioeconomic status, race, age, education, body mass index, and comorbid conditions were also associated with chronic pain and COVID-19 status. Therefore, adjustment was necessary to reduce confounding of the primary hypothesis.

Compared to those who tested negative, those who tested positive for COVID-19 were more likely to be non-white, of working age, with lower income and education levels, and a higher of comorbid conditions. This was similar to other studies conducted during this time period [26]. Therefore, an additional 1:1:1 matching approach was chosen to balance these covariates and further isolate and assess the potential impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain. Matching was successfully achieved for most participants in the COVID-19 group with the lowest frequency (i.e., 1223/1440 of mild symptom group, or 85%). After matching, the odds of pain in the high symptom group increased and remained significant. There was no difference in the likelihood of pain between the COVID-19 negative group and the no/mild symptom group. This might be explained by the socio-demographic characteristics in the no/mild symptom group. These individuals were younger, with a lower proportion of functional disability and historic diagnosis of chronic inflammation (S1 Table). These findings are similar to other studies, where younger and healthier individuals were at lower risk of a severe COVID-19 illness and poor outcomes [27, 28]. Considering these factors are also strongly associated with pain, this may explain why after matching the three COVID-19 groups, the protective association seen in the adjusted model was no longer significant. It’s likely there are additional confounders that were unmeasured or unaccounted for that might further explain why those in the mild symptom group seemed to have a lower prevalence of chronic pain.

While the present study does not provide evidence of a causal relationship between COVID-19 symptom load and development of chronic pain due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, there are a handful of studies have examined newly onset chronic pain after a COVID-19. One case-controlled cross-sectional study of 119 patients in Brazil compared newly onset chronic pain amongst hospitalized patients with and without a COVID-19 infection [29]. Results showed that while pre-hospitalization pain was much higher in the control group, de novo chronic pain was more prevalent in the COVID-19 infection group (19.6%) compared to the control group (1.4%). Another cross-sectional study from Cyprus included 90 COVID-19 survivors [30]. The prevalence of chronic pain was found to be around 63%, while newly onset chronic pain occurred in one in six participants, or 16.7%. Finally, a large multi-center trial of patients previously hospitalized from a COIVD-19 infection was conducted in Spain [31]. Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain was 45%, and 22.6% reported developing newly onset chronic pain.

De novo pain appears to be occurring, especially after severe infections. Therefore, it’s plausible that overall estimates of the prevalence of pain in the population might also increase. In the U.S., studies using the NHIS survey data from 2016–2019 have reported the prevalence of chronic pain to be relatively steady at 20.4% [13, 14]. In this 2021 survey data however, the prevalence of reported chronic pain rose to 20.9% in the full study population. Pain prevalence in the full population database was slightly higher compared to our inclusion sample (20.9% vs 19.7%). Our study inclusion criteria were partially based on taking a COVID-19 test. Therefore, this difference in prevalence of pain may be due to differences in those who had access to COVID-19 testing. It’s unknown to what degree this might affect the model results. In general, it’s possible that our sample may be underestimating the associated impact of a severe COVID-19 infection on pain due to lack of reported COVID-19 testing at the time.

The magnitude of the public health burden of pain has proven difficult to quantify [32]. Chronic pain is associated with an increase in depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance [33]. It can impact daily living activities, reduce social engagement, and impact the ability to contribute to the workforce [12]. The economic impact of chronic pain is astonishing. The cost attributable to chronic pain through medical expenditures and loss of worker productivity in the United States is estimated to range from 560 to 635 billion dollars per year [34].

Further, treating chronic pain is complex. Nonpharmacologic approaches such as physical therapy, massage therapy, chiropractic care, or even forms of music therapy can serve as viable alternatives to pharmacologic treatments for pain relief. However, these services are still underutilized [35]. Limited insurance coverage and disparities in utilization of these services for pain management and post COVID-19 symptom management have been documented [36]. Much of pain management still revolves around an ‘opioid-centric’ approach [37]. In fact, a recent study found an increase in opioid prescribing patterns for treating post covid-19 symptoms [8]. These findings were described in the population of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) users, but the implication of using opioids to manage pain, and the subsequent impact on the current opioid epidemic in the general population, are similar. Opioid prescription rates were plateauing and declining in years prior to the pandemic [38], but remained alarmingly high in some areas of North America. It is currently unknown to what degree these rates have changed throughout the pandemic. Notwithstanding, opioid prescription related mortality rates rose significantly in 19 states from 2019 to 2020, and were involved in nearly a quarter of opioid-related mortalities in 2020 [39].

This study has implications for public health practice and policy. Several characteristics are linked to developing severe COVID-19 infections. It remains critically important to educate individuals and the public on assessing personal risk of developing a severe infection, and how to mitigate these risks. Vaccination remains one of the strongest defenses against development of a severe COVID-19 infection [40] and subsequent long-haul symptoms such as chronic pain. Vaccine efficacy remains higher against severe infections compared to milder infections, but still can wane over time against emerging variants [40]. Therefore, booster dosing programs, advocacy, and educational campaigns remain as essential components of prevention. If prevalence of chronic pain is expected to increase in the post pandemic era, then strategies for pain management must intersect at the clinical practice level and population health level [41].

Our study also has several strengths. To our knowledge, this is the first population-level multivariable-controlled and matched study to examine symptomatic COVID-19 infection as a new risk factor for chronic pain. We used the National Health Interview Survey, which in 2022 was evaluated to be the best US population level surveillance source for monitoring pain [42]. The large sample size allowed us to control for many socio-demographic factors as well as comorbid conditions that are associated with pain.

Our study also has limitations. First, as with any cross-sectional data, one cannot establish time ordered events or causality. It is possible chronic pain occurred in participants prior to a COVID-19 infection. Second, survey data are self-reported and subject to recall bias. This data did not include information on COVID-19 vaccination status or additional COVID-19 related treatments, so we were unable to account these factors. Also, it is likely that our analysis excluded some important risk factors for pain. While some behavioral risk factors were not included in the database, at the suggestion of a reviewer, we ran a model that included both smoking and hypertension as additional covariates. However, this did not appreciably improve model fit or change the effects for the primary predictor in any meaningful way, therefore, we elected to maintain the more simplified original model. Finally, to obtain the most robust identification of a COVID-19 infection, we included only those survey participants who reported taking at least one COVID-19 test. This excluded approximately 40% of the survey respondents. There may have been different propensities to take a COVID-19 test, stigmas surrounding COVID-19 testing and infection, and inequalities in testing availability [43]; all which may explain the lack of testing amongst survey respondents. Aside from additional characteristics that may be associated with non-testing, those who are infected but asymptomatic are less likely to take a test. Therefore, it’s likely COVID-19 was underdiagnosed during this time.

Conclusions

Using nationally representative population-level data, this study suggests that a highly symptomatic COVID-19 infection may be a new significant risk factor for chronic pain. This finding may foreshadow an increase in the population prevalence of chronic pain, and highlights the continued importance of reducing severe COVID-19 infections. Future prospective studies are necessary to assess the risk of chronic pain incidence after a severe COVID-19 infection.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Covariate distribution amongst COVID-19 groups before and after matching.

Covariates distributions were compared using Chi-Square tests, and most were found to be imbalanced amongst the COVID-19 groups prior to matching. After matching, no significant differences were found, and all standardized mean differences were <0.1, indicating good balance.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) are publicly available and may be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/2021nhis.htm.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard 2023 [Cited March 9, 2023]. https://covid19.who.int/.
  • 2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID or Post-COVID Conditions 2022 [Cited October 14 2022]. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/.
  • 3.Center for Disease Control. Nearly One in Five American Adults Who Have Had COVID-19 Still Have “Long COVID” 2022 [Cited December 15 2022]. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220622.htm.
  • 4.O’Mahoney LL, Routen A, Gillies C, Ekezie W, Welford A, Zhang A, et al. The prevalence and long-term health effects of Long Covid among hospitalised and non-hospitalised populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;55:101762. Epub 2022/12/08. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Iqbal FM, Lam K, Sounderajah V, Clarke JM, Ashrafian H, Darzi A. Characteristics and predictors of acute and chronic post-COVID syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021;36:100899. Epub 2021/05/27. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100899 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Carvalho-Schneider C, Laurent E, Lemaignen A, Beaufils E, Bourbao-Tournois C, Laribi S, et al. Follow-up of adults with noncritical COVID-19 two months after symptom onset. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27(2):258–63. Epub 2020/10/09. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kume J, Jumbo A, Voltmer C, Luo F. Functional Limitations Associated with Frailty Risk in Older Adults Increased after COVID-19 Infection in 2020 CDC NHIS Data. J Geriatr Med Gerontol. 2022; 8(134). [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Al-Aly Z, Xie Y, Bowe B. High-dimensional characterization of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. Nature. 2021;594(7862):259–64. Epub 2021/04/23. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03553-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fiala K, Martens J, Abd-Elsayed A. Post-COVID Pain Syndromes. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2022;26(5):379–83. Epub 2022/03/11. doi: 10.1007/s11916-022-01038-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Blyth FM, Van Der Windt DA, Croft PR. Chronic Disabling Pain: A Significant Public Health Problem. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(1):98–101. Epub 2015/06/22. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Goldberg DS, McGee SJ. Pain as a global public health priority. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:770. Epub 2011/10/08. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-770 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yong RJ, Mullins PM, Bhattacharyya N. Prevalence of chronic pain among adults in the United States. Pain. 2022;163(2):e328–e32. Epub 2021/05/15. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002291 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zelaya CE, Dahlhamer JM, Lucas JW, Connor EM. Chronic Pain and High-impact Chronic Pain Among U.S. Adults, 2019. NCHS Data Brief. 2020;(390):1–8. Epub 2020/11/06. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dahlhamer J, Lucas J, Zelaya C, Nahin R, Mackey S, DeBar L, et al. Prevalence of Chronic Pain and High-Impact Chronic Pain Among Adults—United States, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(36):1001–6. Epub 2018/09/14. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6736a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Treede RD, Rief W, Barke A, Aziz Q, Bennett MI, Benoliel R, et al. A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11. Pain. 2015;156(6):1003–7. Epub 2015/04/07. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000160 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Axon DR, Le D. Predictors of pain severity among community-dwelling older adults with pain in the United States: Findings from a cross-sectional, retrospective study using 2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Medicine. 2021;100(20):e26011. Epub 2021/05/21. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mills SEE, Nicolson KP, Smith BH. Chronic pain: a review of its epidemiology and associated factors in population-based studies. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e273–e83. Epub 2019/05/14. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About the National Health Interview Survey 2022 [Cited October 12 2022]. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/index.htm.
  • 19.Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70(1):41–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score. The American Statistician. 1985;39(1):33–8. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Austin PC. An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424. Epub 2011/08/06. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lee SW, Acharya KP. Propensity score matching for causal inference and reducing the confounding effects: statistical standard and guideline of Life Cycle Committee. Life Cycle. 2022;2:e18. doi: 10.54724/lc.2022.e18 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mo H, Yan X, Zhao F, Teng Y, Sun X, Lv Z, et al. Association of Taxane Type With Patient-Reported Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Among Patients With Breast Cancer. JAMA Network Open. 2022;5(11):e2239788–e. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.39788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Austin PC, Jembere N, Chiu M. Propensity score matching and complex surveys. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(4):1240–57. Epub 2016/07/28. doi: 10.1177/0962280216658920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Carr DB, Fox DM, Rothstein MA, Spellman CM. Pain Management and Public Health: Introduction to the Special Section. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(1):17–8. Epub 2019/01/01. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021;8(3):732–42. Epub 2020/09/03. doi: 10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kompaniyets L, Pennington AF, Goodman AB, Rosenblum HG, Belay B, Ko JY, et al. Underlying Medical Conditions and Severe Illness Among 540,667 Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March 2020-March 2021. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E66. Epub 2021/07/02. doi: 10.5888/pcd18.210123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Romero Starke K, Reissig D, Petereit-Haack G, Schmauder S, Nienhaus A, Seidler A. The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Global Health. 2021;6(12). Epub 2021/12/18. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Soares FHC, Kubota GT, Fernandes AM, Hojo B, Couras C, Costa BV, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of new-onset pain in COVID-19 survivours, a controlled study. Eur J Pain. 2021;25(6):1342–54. Epub 2021/02/24. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1755 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zis P, Ioannou C, Artemiadis A, Christodoulou K, Kalampokini S, Hadjigeorgiou GM. Prevalence and Determinants of Chronic Pain Post-COVID; Cross-Sectional Study. J Clin Med. 2022;11(19):5569. doi: 10.3390/jcm11195569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, de-la-Llave-Rincón AI, Ortega-Santiago R, Ambite-Quesada S, Gómez-Mayordomo V, Cuadrado ML, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of musculoskeletal pain symptoms as long-term post-COVID sequelae in hospitalized COVID-19 survivors: a multicenter study. Pain. 2022;163(9):e989–e96. Epub 2021/12/17. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002564 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bonnie RJ, Schumacher MA, Clark JD, Kesselheim AS. Pain Management and Opioid Regulation: Continuing Public Health Challenges. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(1):31–4. Epub 2019/01/01. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304881 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Haack M, Simpson N, Sethna N, Kaur S, Mullington J. Sleep deficiency and chronic pain: potential underlying mechanisms and clinical implications. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2020;45(1):205–16. doi: 10.1038/s41386-019-0439-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gaskin DJ, Richard P. The economic costs of pain in the United States. J Pain. 2012;13(8):715–24. Epub 2012/05/23. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.03.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Strahan AE, McKenna C, Miller GF, Guy GP. Prevalence of Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Therapies Among Noncancer Chronic Pain–Associated Ambulatory Care Visits, 2016. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):e175–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.04.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hentschel CB, Abramoff BA, Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE. Race, ethnicity, and utilization of outpatient rehabilitation for treatment of post COVID-19 condition. PM R. 2022;14(11):1315–24. Epub 2022/07/06. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kerns RD. Social and Behavioral Sciences: Response to the Opioid and Pain Crises in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S6–s8. Epub 2022/02/11. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2022.306773 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Romeiser JL, Labriola J, Meliker JR. Geographic patterns of prescription opioids and opioid overdose deaths in New York State, 2013–2015. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2019;195:94–100. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.11.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prescription Opioid Overdose Death Maps 2022 [Cited December 15 2022]. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/deaths/prescription/maps.html.
  • 40.Feikin DR, Higdon MM, Abu-Raddad LJ, Andrews N, Araos R, Goldberg Y, et al. Duration of effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease: results of a systematic review and meta-regression. Lancet. 2022;399(10328):924–44. Epub 2022/02/25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00152-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sud A, Buchman DZ, Furlan AD, Selby P, Spithoff SM, Upshur REG. Chronic Pain and Opioid Prescribing: Three Ways for Navigating Complexity at the Clinical-Population Health Interface. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S1):S56–s65. Epub 2022/02/11. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2021.306500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Duca LM, Helmick CG, Barbour KE, Nahin RL, Von Korff M, Murphy LB, et al. A Review of Potential National Chronic Pain Surveillance Systems in the United States. J Pain. 2022;23(9):1492–509. Epub 2022/04/15. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.02.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hendricks B, Price BS, Dotson T, Kimble W, Davis S, Khodaverdi M, et al. If You Build It, Will They Come? Is Test Site Availability a Root Cause of Geographic Disparities in COVID-19 Testing? Public Health. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2022.09.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dong Keon Yon

24 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-09591COVID-19 Symptom Load as a Risk Factor for Chronic Pain: A National Cross-Sectional StudyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Romeiser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dong Keon Yon, MD, FACAAI

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is no doubt that the author included a huge data and this will increase the reliability of the results but I wonder why he ignored some an important risk factors such as smoking, drinking, and hypertension. Anyhow I think this manuscript is eligible for publishing as it.

Reviewer #2: PLOS One:

Title: COVID-19 Symptom Load as a Risk Factor for Chronic Pain: A National Cross-Sectional Study.

Comments to the authors:

- There is a fundamental question the MS did not answered anywhere: how the authors confirmed the severity of COVID-19 severity?

- What are the traditional risk factors for chronic pain? This should be elaborated

- The authors made a great effort in statistical analysis to control the possible confounders which is a novel approach for this MS.

Introduction:

In this section the authors did not define the term “chronic pain” and its significance.

Line 44: 19% of those instead of just 19% those?

Methods:

- Line 81: URL for this data should be referenced.

- What do you mean by valid pain data? How did you validate the presence of chronic pain among the survey population?

- The classification of severity (apart from tests results) was not clear which symptoms (symptoms load) the authors identified to classify their participants accordingly?

- What are the variables used to conduct sensitivity analyses (and how many analyses were required) and what were the possible scenarios evolved?

- How the poverty income ratio was calculated? What was its significance?

- Multi-survey weights were applied and complex survey weights were used: what are the differences?

- Line 117: remove “simple” and replace it with bivariate logistic regression.

- I think in this section you have to mention the sensitivity analyses followed by propensity score and matching: for each you have to mention the importance and applicability to your research.

- Line 126 to line 127: this paragraph is confusing and needs more elaboration.

Results:

- How many were included in the original survey?

- Remove representing 135.7 million US adult citizens.

- In table 1: you have to mention “the weightage” unweighted and weighted?????

- Table 1: the title of the table is not full: table should be stand alone.

- Table 1: use effective digits if possible: 79.11% (to 79.1%)

- Line 151: mention the Odds ratio and C.I for the prevalence of chronic pain among the different groups.

- Table 1: bivariate analysis should be included

- Table 2: the same comments regarding the adjustment

- Please revise the Odds ratio for gender (1.14 “1.04-1.24’)????

- Figure 1A: the probability of chronic pain (not just pain is 4% higher)!!! In this figure, the dose-relationship is not working for COVID-19, as the gradient for pain is less in mild vs. COVID-19 negative, this needs explanation????

- Line 171: COVID-19 symptoms group was found to be significantly associated with pain???? Needs elaboration: how was significantly associated???

- Line 179 to line 187: this section should be placed under the statistical analysis section

Discussion section:

- Line 224: confusing “in the lowest frequency group”????

- A separate section should be dedicated to study’s limitation “most important of which is the built-in problem of cross-sectional design and scarcity of evidence to support your conclusion.

- Provide some explanation of your findings: the conflicting findings of pain in relation to mild vs. negative cases (for example).

- The conclusion section should replace that in the abstract (more realistic)

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor and Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

It is a cross-sectional population-based study assessing whether COVID-19 symptom severity could be a risk factor for self-reported chronic pain. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the year 2021. Authors categorised the primary predictor based on testing status and symptom load into three categories: no-infection, asymptomatic/mild and moderate/severe symptoms. The primary outcome was dichotomised into never having pain and reported pain groups. A complex survey design and multi-level survey weights were used. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and 1:1:1 propensity score matching was used to account for all covariates and ensure balance and better estimates, which was feasible with the large sample size of 15,335 US individuals. A total of 3669 participants were matched.

Authors found that the prevalence of chronic pain was higher in the moderate/severe symptoms group (25.48%) than in the reference group (19.44%). Adjusted regression analysis revealed that individuals in the moderate/severe symptoms group had significantly higher odds of chronic pain (OR: 1.28, 95%CI: 1.09 to 1.51) than those with no infection. Remarkably those in the asymptomatic/mild symptoms groups had lesser odds of chronic pain (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.69 to 0.96) than the reference group.

Similarly, matched adjusted regression model showed significantly higher odds of pain for the moderate/severe group than the reference group (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.14 to 1.83). However, matching revealed no significant difference between the mild/ asymptomatic and the no-infection group (OR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.68 to 1.09). Adjusted probability of chronic pain was also higher in those with moderate/severe symptoms than in the reference and the asymptomatic/mild symptoms groups, 20%, 16%, and 13%, respectively. Matched paired probabilities were also similar (22%, 16%, and 14%).

My overall impression is positive; despite the cross-sectional nature limitations, methods and analysis were rigorous, and key limitations were highlighted. Differences between covariates existed; however, the sample size was large enough; thus, propensity score matching was feasible, and balance was achieved. I have minor remarks only:

• The (NHIS) abbreviation was mentioned in the introduction before the methods section. Thus, spelling the "National Health Interview Survey" before its abbreviation in the introduction (line 69) would be helpful.

• Some citations were missing (lines 40-41, 47, 75, 76, 78, and 79).

Kind regards,

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: yes

Reviewer #2: Yes: Tarek Tawfik Amin

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Recom.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287554. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287554.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 May 2023

Dear Reviewers,

We thank you for your time and efforts to increase the quality of this manuscript. Please see our responses below. Line references refer to the changes made in the tracked changes document.

Reviewer #1: It is no doubt that the author included a huge data and this will increase the reliability of the results but I wonder why he ignored some an important risk factors such as smoking, drinking, and hypertension. Anyhow I think this manuscript is eligible for publishing as it.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for their comments, and for pointing out the absence of risk factors such as smoking, drinking and hypertension in the analysis we conducted. Unfortunately, not all important risk factors (especially behavioral risk factors) were available as variables in the data set used for this analysis, and alcohol was among those not present. Based on this comment, however, we examined the change in model fit and change in the main effects of the covid +symptoms variable when we added smoking and hypertension. We found that these additions did not appreciably improve the model fit (change in c-index of 1%) or change the effects for the primary predictor in any meaningful way. We have elected to use the simplified original model, and we have added language to the statement of limitations to make this approach (and potential limitation) clear (lines 319-324).

Reviewer #2:

- There is a fundamental question the MS did not answered anywhere: how the authors confirmed the severity of COVID-19 severity?

RESPONSE: The survey participants were asked the following question: “How would you describe your coronavirus symptoms when they were at their worst? Would you say no symptoms, mild symptoms, moderate symptoms, or severe symptoms?” We have added this information to line 99 for additional clarification.

- What are the traditional risk factors for chronic pain? This should be elaborated

RESPONSE: Traditional risk factors for chronic pain are outlined in lines 59-62.

- The authors made a great effort in statistical analysis to control the possible confounders which is a novel approach for this MS.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for this comment.

Introduction:

In this section the authors did not define the term “chronic pain” and its significance.

RESPONSE: We have added the definition of chronic pain, as well as an additional reference for this definition.

Line 44: 19% of those instead of just 19% those?

RESPONSE: We have corrected this typo.

Methods:

- Line 81: URL for this data should be referenced.

RESPONSE: We have added this URL.

- What do you mean by valid pain data? How did you validate the presence of chronic pain among the survey population?

RESPONSE: We have removed the word ‘valid’, as this word was intended to indicate non-missing data and data that were not coded as “refuse to respond”.

- The classification of severity (apart from tests results) was not clear which symptoms (symptoms load) the authors identified to classify their participants accordingly?

RESPONSE: Symptom load is self-reported. Specifically, the survey question states: “How would you describe your coronavirus symptoms when they were at their worst? Would you say no symptoms, mild symptoms, moderate symptoms, or severe symptoms?” We have added this clarification to the manuscript (line 99-100).

- What are the variables used to conduct sensitivity analyses (and how many analyses were required) and what were the possible scenarios evolved?

RESPONSE: We believe the reviewer is referring to the original line 102 with this inquiry. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to ensure that asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic groups were similar in both covariate distribution and pain, before we grouped them together. Both asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic individuals reported lower prevalence of pain compared to the no covid group – indicating the findings were not being driven by either the asymptomatic or mild group. Similarly, we wanted to ensure those with moderate and severe symptoms groups had similar covariate distribution and pain before we grouped them together. The findings here were similar as well – both moderate and severe symptom groups had higher prevalence of pain compared to the no covid group, indicating these results were not being driven by just one of these symptom level groups (moderate or severe). Because these symptomatic groups behaved similarly, we had higher confidence in grouping them together. We have clarified this language in the methods section (lines 101-106).

- How the poverty income ratio was calculated? What was its significance?

RESPONSE: As per the NHIS database codebook, poverty income ratio is defined as the “ratio of family income to poverty threshold”. This is a variable that exists within the NHIS Database, however, we have added the definition to line 117 for further clarification. This variable is commonly used as a metric of socioeconomic status. It is well established that socioeconomic status is inversely related to chronic pain - see references 16 (Axon 2021) and 17(Mills 2019).

- Multi-survey weights were applied and complex survey weights were used: what are the differences?

RESPOSNE: The term multi-level survey weights and complex survey weights are synonymous but for clarity, we have revised the term to complex survey weights throughout (line 124).

- Line 117: remove “simple” and replace it with bivariate logistic regression.

RESPONSE: We have removed the term ‘simple’, and kept ‘Bivariate’ at the beginning of the sentence.

- I think in this section you have to mention the sensitivity analyses followed by propensity score and matching: for each you have to mention the importance and applicability to your research.

- Line 126 to line 127: this paragraph is confusing and needs more elaboration.

Results:

RESPONSE: We have added a line of clarification as to why we performed propensity score matching, specifically to reduce additional confounding that was likely occurring due to the imbalance of covariates between the three groups. (Lines 139-141).

- How many were included in the original survey?

RESPONSE: 29,482. We have added this number to the methods, and we state/discuss related limitations in the discussion section.

- Remove representing 135.7 million US adult citizens.

RESPONSE: After applying the complex survey weights, this is the weighted estimation of US adult citizens represented by the survey. We find it important to include this number to signify that this is a weighted survey representing the US adult population.

- In table 1: you have to mention “the weightage” unweighted and weighted?????

- Table 1: the title of the table is not full: table should be stand alone.

- Table 1: use effective digits if possible: 79.11% (to 79.1%)

RESPONSE: Table 1 demonstrates the proportions of the frequencies as unweighted and weighted (i.e., application of the complex survey weights). This is a common practice of displaying large population -based survey data, but the terms are outlined in the methods section for clarification (lines 126-127).

- Line 151: mention the Odds ratio and C.I for the prevalence of chronic pain among the different groups.

RESPONSE: We report the unadjusted odds ratios (CIs) in table 2.

- Table 1: bivariate analysis should be included

RESPONSE: We include the bivariate analyses in Table 2.

- Table 2: the same comments regarding the adjustment

RESPONSE: We include the bivariate analyses in Table 2.

- Please revise the Odds ratio for gender (1.14 “1.04-1.24’)????

RESPONSE: We have double checked our analysis – the reported odds ratio and confidence interval are correct.

- Figure 1A: the probability of chronic pain (not just pain is 4% higher)!!! In this figure, the dose-relationship is not working for COVID-19, as the gradient for pain is less in mild vs. COVID-19 negative, this needs explanation????

RESPONSE: We have added the word chronic prior to pain in the results (line 180). We explain a possible reason for this non-dose response relationship in the discussion (lines 235-245), but we have also added connections to prior literature (lines 246-248).

- Line 171: COVID-19 symptoms group was found to be significantly associated with pain???? Needs elaboration: how was significantly associated???

RESPONSE: Because this is the figure legend text, we chose not to repeat information from the figure in the text of the legend. Proportions are labeled on the figure, with an asterix (and labeling) indicating the level of significance for each comparison.

- Line 179 to line 187: this section should be placed under the statistical analysis section

RESPONSE: We believe that reporting the imbalances that were present is an important result. Further, we have added a finding that may assist in explaining the non-dose response relationship between symptoms and pain.

Discussion section:

- Line 224: confusing “in the lowest frequency group”????

RESPONSE: We have added clarifying language here. The mild symptom group (n = 1440) has the lowest frequency within the database compared to no covid (n = 12,131) and higher symptoms (n = 1764). The final matching dataset is limited by lowest frequency group. Propensity score matching in general is a very data hungry approach, so by matching a very high proportion of this lowest frequency group (85%), we were able to preserve a great deal of the sample while still balancing the measured covariates.

- A separate section should be dedicated to study’s limitation “most important of which is the built-in problem of cross-sectional design and scarcity of evidence to support your conclusion.

RESPONSE: Indeed, we agree that cross-sectional designs and survey data in general have limitations, and we have referred to these limitations in the discussion section (starting line 315). We also acknowledge that few studies have examined this issue, but a few smaller studies have examined de novo pain after a covid infection (lines 242-254).

- Provide some explanation of your findings: the conflicting findings of pain in relation to mild vs. negative cases (for example).

RESPONSE: We explain a possible reason for this non-dose response relationship in the discussion (lines 235-248), and why using propensity scores to match on pre-existing risk factors for pain plays a potentially important role in interpretation of the findings.

- The conclusion section should replace that in the abstract (more realistic)

RESPONSE: The conclusion section of the manuscript and the conclusion section of the abstract are similar. We elect to maintain the abstract conclusion as is.

Reviewer #3:

Reviewer #3: Dear Editor and Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

It is a cross-sectional population-based study assessing whether COVID-19 symptom severity could be a risk factor for self-reported chronic pain. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for the year 2021. Authors categorised the primary predictor based on testing status and symptom load into three categories: no-infection, asymptomatic/mild and moderate/severe symptoms. The primary outcome was dichotomised into never having pain and reported pain groups. A complex survey design and multi-level survey weights were used. Multivariate logistic regression analysis and 1:1:1 propensity score matching was used to account for all covariates and ensure balance and better estimates, which was feasible with the large sample size of 15,335 US individuals. A total of 3669 participants were matched.

Authors found that the prevalence of chronic pain was higher in the moderate/severe symptoms group (25.48%) than in the reference group (19.44%). Adjusted regression analysis revealed that individuals in the moderate/severe symptoms group had significantly higher odds of chronic pain (OR: 1.28, 95%CI: 1.09 to 1.51) than those with no infection. Remarkably those in the asymptomatic/mild symptoms groups had lesser odds of chronic pain (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.69 to 0.96) than the reference group.

Similarly, matched adjusted regression model showed significantly higher odds of pain for the moderate/severe group than the reference group (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.14 to 1.83). However, matching revealed no significant difference between the mild/ asymptomatic and the no-infection group (OR: 0.86, 95%CI: 0.68 to 1.09). Adjusted probability of chronic pain was also higher in those with moderate/severe symptoms than in the reference and the asymptomatic/mild symptoms groups, 20%, 16%, and 13%, respectively. Matched paired probabilities were also similar (22%, 16%, and 14%).

My overall impression is positive; despite the cross-sectional nature limitations, methods and analysis were rigorous, and key limitations were highlighted. Differences between covariates existed; however, the sample size was large enough; thus, propensity score matching was feasible, and balance was achieved. I have minor remarks only:My overall impression is positive; despite the cross-sectional nature limitations, methods and analysis were rigorous, and key limitations were highlighted. Differences between covariates existed; however, the sample size was large enough; thus, propensity score matching was feasible, and balance was achieved. I have minor remarks only:

• The (NHIS) abbreviation was mentioned in the introduction before the methods section. Thus, spelling the "National Health Interview Survey" before its abbreviation in the introduction (line 69) would be helpful.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for their comment, and we have made this change.

• Some citations were missing (lines 40-41, 47, 75, 76, 78, and 79).

RESPONSE: We have added these citations to the manuscript.

Again, thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

The Manuscript Authors

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Dong Keon Yon

29 May 2023

PONE-D-23-09591R1COVID-19 symptom load as a risk factor for chronic pain: a national cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Romeiser,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 13 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dong Keon Yon, MD, FACAAI

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an excellent paper. However, the authors did not address my previous comments.

#1. IRB review was exempt for this study. -> The University IRB is exempt, but there is a CDC IRB for the National Health Interview Survey. Describe it.

#2. Ref 18 and 19 is too old (1985??). Please cite this paper. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54724/lc.2022.e18

#3. This is an excellent paper!

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In regard to my comments, the author's answers convinced me.

All required questions have been answered and that all responses meet formatting specifications.

Reviewer #2: - In table 1: you mentioned % in the head rows and not need the % after the figure for each individual cell.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed. Clarifications have been added, and the methods and results look clearer.

Great paper. Well done to Authors!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Firas Rashad Al-Samarai

Reviewer #2: Yes: Tarek Tawfik Amin

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0287554. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287554.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


6 Jun 2023

We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their comments and time. Below are our responses to their additional comments. In addition, we have reformatted our references.

Additional Editor Comments:

This is an excellent paper. However, the authors did not address my previous comments.

RESPONSE: We thank the editor for this comment. Please know that we did not see the three comments below included in the original request for revision.

#1. IRB review was exempt for this study. -> The University IRB is exempt, but there is a CDC IRB for the National Health Interview Survey. Describe it.

RESPONSE: We have added a line about the NCHS review board.

#2. Ref 18 and 19 is too old (1985??). Please cite this paper. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54724/lc.2022.e18

RESPONSE: Even though the publication dates on these two manuscripts are older, these are foundational manuscripts for propensity scores. We believe these maintain their importance, and have elected to keep these foundational references. Please note that in addition, we also cite newer yet renowned manuscripts that, in tandem, provide instructional support for readers. At the editor’s request, we have added the following citation:

Lee SW, Acharya KP. Propensity score matching for causal inference and reducing the confounding effects: statistical standard and guideline of Life Cycle Committee. Life Cycle. 2022;2:e18.

#3. This is an excellent paper!

RESPONSE: We thank the editor for their time.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: In regard to my comments, the author's answers convinced me.

All required questions have been answered and that all responses meet formatting specifications.

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for their time.

Reviewer #2: - In table 1: you mentioned % in the head rows and not need the % after the figure for each individual cell.

RESPONSE: We have identified multiple manuscripts published within PLOS ONE that format tables with % signs included within the cells, and the column header as %. We have elected to maintain this original format.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed. Clarifications have been added, and the methods and results look clearer.

Great paper. Well done to Authors!

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for their time.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Dong Keon Yon

7 Jun 2023

COVID-19 symptom load as a risk factor for chronic pain: a national cross-sectional study

PONE-D-23-09591R2

Dear Dr. Romeiser,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Dong Keon Yon, MD, FACAAI

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

This is an excellent paper!

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Dong Keon Yon

13 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-09591R2

COVID-19 symptom load as a risk factor for chronic pain: a national cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Romeiser:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Dong Keon Yon

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Covariate distribution amongst COVID-19 groups before and after matching.

    Covariates distributions were compared using Chi-Square tests, and most were found to be imbalanced amongst the COVID-19 groups prior to matching. After matching, no significant differences were found, and all standardized mean differences were <0.1, indicating good balance.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Recom.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All 2021 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) are publicly available and may be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/2021nhis.htm.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES