Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Nov 15;19(11):e0312163. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312163

COVID-19 and the risk and trajectory of frailty in community- or institution-dwelling individuals: Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Saurabh P Mehta 1, Julie M Faieta 2, Maria Chang Swartz 3, Emily W Blevins 4, Ahmed M Negm 5, Vanina P M Dal Bello-Haas 6,*
Editor: Milad Khorasani7
PMCID: PMC11567516  PMID: 39546432

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe a protocol for a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis examining the associations between an episode of COVID-19 and trajectory as well as the risk of frailty. The protocol for this SR has been registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023468297) and conforms to the guidelines proposed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). The search strategy will involve retrieving literature from six different databases and will be guided by keywords encompassing population (community-dwelling or institution-dwelling adults), exposure (episode of COVID-19), and outcome (frailty). The citations retrieved from the search process will be screened for their eligibility. The risk of bias for the articles identified to be eligible for the review will be examined using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. The Metafor package in R will be used for quantitative data synthesis of the literature. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) will be used to assess the quality and certainty of the body of evidence. This systematic review will provide crucial information to determine whether an episode of COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of frailty. The results of this review will have significant clinical implications in mitigating the risk of frailty after COVID-19.

Introduction

The acute impacts of COVID-19 are now more elucidated in our 4th year post pandemic. The long-term impacts in the form of sustained symptoms, exacerbation of comorbidities, and increased risk of subsequent disease development are still emerging. Certain populations who are more vulnerable to contracting COVID-19, or experiencing worse outcomes, are also more at risk of developing frailty or experiencing poorer frailty-related outcomes. These include older adults and individuals with chronic comorbid conditions [1]. While we are still without uniform consensus on the broader definition of frailty, it can be described as a “biologic syndrome of decreased reserve and resistance to stressors, resulting from cumulative declines across multiple physiologic systems, and causing vulnerability to adverse outcomes” [2]. Despite the lack of a uniform definition, any relationship between COVID-19 and frailty outcomes is important to assess considering the growing aging population and projected increases in the number of people with chronic conditions [3]. Naturally, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased attention toward frailty throughout clinical research. Sciacchitano et al [1] point out a dramatically increased number of publications that incorporate the term frailty in recent post-pandemic years. The interest in the relationship between COVID-19 and frailty, however, may be falling short in the sense that most research attends to only one direction of the bidirectional relationship between these two conditions.

The relationship between viral infection and frailty is often described concerning the influence that frailty has on health outcomes after viral infection. Pott et al [4] investigated combined cases of RSV and influenza and reported that frailty, among several other risk factors, was associated with a heightened risk of poor health outcomes [4]. In their systematic review of the literature, Yang et al [5] report that frailty has a significant positive association with exacerbated adverse health outcomes among those with COVID-19. What is lesser reported is the impact of viral infection on the incidence and severity of frailty in at-risk populations. This systematic review is designed to address this gap in our understanding of the relationship between viral infection and frailty. Due to the prevalence and persistence of COVID-19 as well as its long-term impacts, we are specifically addressing the research question, “Does an episode of COVID-19 affect the risk and trajectory of frailty in community-dwelling or institution-dwelling individuals?”

Materials and methods

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023468297). This protocol is consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [6]. To ensure a high-quality research design, this methodology consists of a comprehensive literature search, clearly defined eligibility criteria to select relevant studies, appraising the quality of studies using a standardized tool, extracting data showing associations of COVID-19 on the trajectory of frailty using pre-designed data form, and analyzing data quantitatively with meta-analysis. The quality of the studies included in the review will be appraised using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool [7,8].

Literature search

Study investigators and a medical librarian collaboratively developed the search strategy to locate primary studies that examined associations between an episode of COVID-19 and the risk and trajectory of frailty in community-dwelling or institutionalized elderly. The search strategy consisted of two broader themes namely COVID-19 and frailty. The search string for COVID-19 as the subject heading was developed using the guidelines provided by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health to locate COVID-19 literature on all major databases [9]. The search was limited to literature published after October 31, 2019, to avoid studies that included patients with other respiratory infections including previous variants of Coronavirus. This was rationalized considering the first known case of COVID-19 was documented in December 2019 [10]. Six databases will be searched including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), SportDiscus, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). No other limiters such as restricting the search to a particular age group or geographic location will be placed. The detailed search strategy is shown in S1 Appendix. Apart from the approaches identified above, the bibliography of the studies included in this review will be scanned to determine any potential article relevant to this review.

Eligibility criteria and identification of studies for the review

The eligibility of the studies retrieved from the literature search will be reviewed using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Eligibility criteria for the studies to be included in this review.

Category for consideration Criteria
Participants/Study population Inclusion: All the following criteria will need to be met for inclusion.
  • Adults who lived in their dwellings or lived independently in settings such as retirement homes or supported living environments

  • Adults who underwent assessment of frailty within 12 months after an episode of COVID-19

  • Adults who were known to be non-frail before the episode of COVID-19

Exclusion: Participants who were known to be frail before COVID-19
Determination of COVID-19 or exposure Inclusion: A documented history of COVID-19 within the 12 months preceding the assessment of frailty; OR being deemed to have long COVID-19
Exclusion: Participants had respiratory infection/exposure other than COVID-19
Determination of frailty or outcome Inclusion: Frailty was measured using the tools known to be most used and highly cited in the literature [11]
Exclusion: Participants were deemed frail using frameworks not described in the literature or are uncommon [11]
Types of study designs Inclusion: Randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies
Exclusion: Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or scoping reviews Conference abstracts, case reports, case studies, short communications, letters to the editors, protocol papers, position papers, protocol papers, white papers, editorials, feasibility studies
Linearity of exposure (COVID-19) versus outcome (frailty) OR time for follow-up Inclusion: Studies should establish the occurrence of frailty within 12 months after the episode of COVID-19
Exclusion: Participants in the study were not assessed for frailty within 12 months after the episode of COVID-19

These criteria encompass categories of type of patient population recruited, exposure, outcomes, types of studies to be included, and timeline for the outcome to emerge after exposure. In addition, the studies published in languages other than English will be excluded from this review. All citations found from the literature search will be exported to the Covidence platform. Two reviewers will independently review all the citations to determine their eligibility, first by reviewing titles/abstracts and then by reviewing full-text copies of the articles. A third reviewer will arbitrate disagreements when the primary reviewers cannot reach a consensus on determining the eligibility of citations. Agreement between two raters in determining the eligibility of articles will be assessed using kappa statistic (κ), where κ values between 0.60–0.79 will suggest moderate agreement, values between 0.80–0.90 will suggest strong agreement and those >0.90 will suggest almost perfect agreement [12].

Data extraction

The data from each study will be extracted for categories of participants, study design, exposure, outcomes assessed, statistical analyses, and results. Specifically, we will collect data for the design and objective of the study, description of the study population, exposure assessment, follow-up period, outcome assessed, covariates analyzed, statistical analyses conducted, and results. Table 2 outlines specific attributes for which the data will be extracted for each of these categories.

Table 2. Details of attributes to be collected during data extraction.

Categories Attributes
Details of the study Author and year of publication
Study design
Study objectives
Geographic location and context of the study
Description of the study population Inclusion/exclusion criteria
Number of participants
Demographic details—age, sex
Exposure assessment The approach used for determining COVID-19 episode (e.g. self-report, medical records, diagnostic tests)
Whether the episode required hospitalization
Outcome assessment List of outcomes including determination of frailty
Test/measurement method used to assess outcomes including frailty
Reliability/validity of outcome measures
Blinding of outcome assessor concerning history of COVID-19
Follow-up Follow-up time interval
Retention of participants
Approach for handling missing data
Covariates or confounders List of covariates considered in the statistical model (e.g. demographic, health history, living situation, hospitalization for COVID-19)
Statistical analyses Statistical model used for assessing association/risk between COVID-19 episode and frailty
Index for ascertaining effect size
Results A list of variables, including COVID-19, was found to be associated with the development of frailty
Effect size (e.g. regression coefficient, odds ratio, risk ratio) and associated p-value for the variables found to be significant

Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias of studies, and certainty of evidence

The risk of bias (RoB) and quality of methodology for the studies included in the will be examined using the QUIPS tool [7,8]. Six domains included in the QUIPS tool to assess the quality of studies are study participation (selection bias), attrition (attrition bias), prognostic factor assessment (measurement bias), outcome assessment (measurement bias), confounding (confounder bias), and statistical analysis and reporting (bias in statistical analysis). The overall RoB for each study will be determined based on RoB in each of the six domains. Studies will be deemed to have low RoB if all six domains have low RoB, or only one domain has moderate RoB. The overall RoB for a study will be high if one or more domains have high RoB or ≥3 domains have moderate RoB. All other studies will be considered to have moderate RoB [7,8]. We will use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) [13] to assess the quality and certainty of the body of evidence. The GRADE approach considers five factors (limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias); inconsistency of results; indirectness of evidence; imprecision; and publication bias), resulting in one of four grades along a continuum [14] (Table 3).

Table 3. Quality and certainty of evidence grades.

Grade Description
High Very confident the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate Moderately confident in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect. There is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low Limited confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very Low Little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

aAdapted from: GRADE Handbook, Section 5. Quality of Evidence; https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.

Data analysis

Measures of effect (relative risk ratio [RR] or odds ratio [OR] for categorical outcomes and beta coefficients for continuous outcomes) for assessing the relationship between the prognostic variable (COVID-19) and the outcome (risk of frailty) will be used for pursuing data synthesis. Meta-analysis of data will be conducted if a pool of studies has sufficient homogeneity. Homogeneity will be examined by reviewing the similarities in clinical attributes such as the determination of exposure variable (i.e. method used for diagnosing COVID-19), duration between assessment of exposure and outcome, and the type of frailty assessed (e.g. physical frailty only versus multiple attributes of frailty). Statistical heterogeneity (I2) will be considered significant for I2 values of >50% [15]. An inverse variance random-effects model will be used for pooling the data [15]. Measures of effect such as RR, OR, or Beta coefficients will be combined to derive an overall estimate of the association between COVID-19 and the risk of frailty. Where necessary, Beta coefficients will be converted to OR using approaches discussed in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews [15]. While we have not planned subgroup analysis a priori, subgroup analysis may be planned based on sex (females versus males) and age (<65 years of age versus ≥65 years of age) should there be sufficient data available for these subgroups. The metafor package in R will be used for conducting meta-analysis [16].

Ethics and dissemination

Approval from an institutional review board is not required for this protocol or systematic review. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

The status and timeline of the study

The review has been initiated and will be completed within the next 8-months for dissemination.

Discussion

The long-term health [1719] and economic [20,21] consequences following an episode of COVID-19 are well documented. Especially in older adults, the COVID-19 episode can have severe effects including higher odds of institutionalization as well as mortality [22,23]. Frailty is a clinical syndrome characterized by decreased reserve across multiple physiological systems [24]. The relationship between COVID-19 episodes and frailty has been explored in literature [5,25]. Using systematic review and meta-analysis design, this review will examine the prevalent literature to determine whether having an episode of COVID-19 is associated with the development of frailty within 12 months after the episode. The review will provide crucial information regarding the profile of people who have a greater likelihood of developing frailty after COVID-19, which will facilitate timely management to decrease the risk of frailty. The results of this study will be important for healthcare providers, patients, and their families of patients in understanding individual risk for developing frailty after COVID-19 and preparing healthcare as well as social support systems to manage frailty.

Undertaking systematic review and meta-analysis requires that the researchers follow a robust methodology to improve internal validity as well as generalization of results. This review will follow recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration for conducting systematic reviews of prognostic studies [26]. These recommendations offer guidelines for each step of the review from locating the evidence using comprehensive search methods, to appraising the evidence using standardized appraisal tools and using high-quality statistical approaches to synthesize the data for understanding the phenomenon under the investigation. The literature search strategy shown in S1 Appendix was developed in consultation with a medical librarian and will locate relevant literature from six different databases. The QUIPS tool that will be used for assessing the quality of studies provides a detailed assessment of the methodological quality of the prognostic study [8]. This tool is one of the recommended instruments by the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group [27]. The other strength of this review is that the author team is a group of multidisciplinary scholars who collectively have considerable expertise in conducting similar reviews in the past.

While we feel confident about our methodological approach, we foresee some challenges that we will encounter throughout the different phases of this review. One of the eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies in this review is to ensure that the study sample did not have frailty before the episode of COVID-19, since pre-existing diagnosis of frailty may render the assessment of associations between COVID-19 and frailty meaningless. It is anticipated that some studies may not have considered the prevalence of frailty before the COVID-19 episode in the study sample, which would misclassify people and increase false positive cases in that study. To our end, we will locate and separately analyze studies where the sample was recruited from institutionalized settings such as long-term care or skilled nursing facilities since it is logical to assume that the prevalence of frailty before COVID-19 episode might be higher in such individuals. Secondly, we anticipate significant diversity in the timing and measurement tools used for determining frailty. Especially, a wide range of assessment tools has been identified in the literature [11] due to the broad interpretation of what frailty is [24]. Our approach to only include studies that have used the most commonly utilized tool will lead to some clarity and increased generalizability of this review. Lastly, multiple indices are used to demonstrate associations between two variables [28]. There is a possibility that the use of different indices across different studies included in this review will render meta-analysis very challenging. We, however, do hope that the binary nature of both the exposure (i.e. episode of COVID-19 or not) and the outcome variable (occurrence of frailty or not) will bring some level of homogeneity in the statistical index used across the studies to demonstrate an association.

Conclusion

While COVID-19 infections may have peaked worldwide, the disabling aftereffects of the infections continue to prevail in many individuals. Understanding the risk profile for developing adverse health outcomes such as frailty after a COVID-19 episode can improve care for COVID-19 survivors. The results of this systematic review will have important clinical implications for understanding the profile of patients at higher risk of developing frailty after an episode of COVID-19. Moreover, the study results will also identify prevalent gaps in knowledge to understand better the risk of developing frailty after an episode of COVID-19.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

(DOC)

pone.0312163.s001.doc (81.5KB, doc)
S1 Appendix

(DOCX)

pone.0312163.s002.docx (15.6KB, docx)

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Sciacchitano S, Carola V, Nicolais G, Sciacchitano S, Napoli C, Mancini R, et al. To Be Frail or Not to Be Frail: This Is the Question-A Critical Narrative Review of Frailty. J Clin Med. 2024;13(3):721. doi: 10.3390/jcm13030721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–56. doi: 10.1093/gerona/56.3.m146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ansah JP, Chiu CT. Projecting the chronic disease burden among the adult population in the United States using a multi-state population model. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1082183. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1082183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pott H, LeBlanc JJ, ElSherif MS, Hatchette TF, McNeil SA, Andrew MK, et al. Clinical features and outcomes of influenza and RSV coinfections: a report from Canadian immunization research network serious outcomes surveillance network. BMC Infect Dis. 2024;24(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12879-024-09033-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yang Y, Luo K, Jiang Y, Yu Q, Huang X, Wang J, et al. The Impact of Frailty on COVID-19 Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 16 Cohort Studies. J Nutr Health Aging. 2021;25(5):702–9. doi: 10.1007/s12603-021-1611-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grooten WJA, Tseli E, Äng BO, Boersma K, Stålnacke BM, Gerdle B, et al. Elaborating on the assessment of the risk of bias in prognostic studies in pain rehabilitation using QUIPS-aspects of interrater agreement. Diagn Progn Res. 2019;3:5. doi: 10.1186/s41512-019-0050-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(4):280–6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.CADTH COVID-19 Search Strings Ottawa, ON, Canada: The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2021 [updated Sept 2, 2021. https://www.cadth.ca/literature-searching-tools/cadth-covid-19-search-strings.
  • 10.Cascella M, Rajnik M, Aleem A, Dulebohn SC, Di Napoli R. Features, Evaluation, and Treatment of Coronavirus (COVID-19). StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2024, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2024. [PubMed]
  • 11.Buta BJ, Walston JD, Godino JG, Park M, Kalyani RR, Xue QL, et al. Frailty assessment instruments: Systematic characterization of the uses and contexts of highly-cited instruments. Ageing Res Rev. 2016;26:53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2015.12.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2012.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):380–2. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. Updated October. 2013;2013:15. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, Group obotCSM. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions2019. p. 241–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–60. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Banić M, Janković Makek M, Samaržija M, Muršić D, Boras Z, Trkeš V, et al. Risk factors and severity of functional impairment in long COVID: a single-center experience in Croatia. Croat Med J. 2022;63(1):27–35. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2022.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dennis A, Wamil M, Alberts J, Oben J, Cuthbertson DJ, Wootton D, et al. Multiorgan impairment in low-risk individuals with post-COVID-19 syndrome: a prospective, community-based study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e048391. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Nehme M, Braillard O, Chappuis F, Guessous I. The chronification of post-COVID condition associated with neurocognitive symptoms, functional impairment and increased healthcare utilization. Scientific reports. 2022;12(1):14505. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18673-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Voruz P, Assal F, Péron JA. The economic burden of the post-COVID-19 condition: Underestimated long-term consequences of neuropsychological deficits. J Glob Health. 2023;13:03019. doi: 10.7189/jogh.13.03019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wolff Sagy Y, Feldhamer I, Brammli-Greenberg S, Lavie G. Estimating the economic burden of long-Covid: the additive cost of healthcare utilisation among COVID-19 recoverees in Israel. BMJ Glob Health. 2023;8(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012588 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tejada-Vera B, Kramarow EA. COVID-19 Mortality in Adults Aged 65 and Over: United States, 2020. NCHS Data Brief. 2022(446):1–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Cases L, Vela E, Santaeugènia Gonzàlez SJ, Contel JC, Carot-Sans G, Coca M, et al. Excess mortality among older adults institutionalized in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based analysis in Catalonia. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1208184. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1208184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Xue QL. The frailty syndrome: definition and natural history. Clin Geriatr Med. 2011;27(1):1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2010.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Fernandes AL, Pereira RMR. Frailty in the context of COVID-19 pandemic: A life-threatening condition. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:965562. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.965562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Moons KG, Hooft L, Williams K, Hayden JA, Damen JA, Riley RD. Implementing systematic reviews of prognosis studies in Cochrane. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10(10):Ed000129. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tools: Risk of bias assessment: Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group; 2024 [https://methods.cochrane.org/prognosis/tools.
  • 28.Roberts MR, Ashrafzadeh S, Asgari MM. Research Techniques Made Simple: Interpreting Measures of Association in Clinical Research. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139(3):502–11.e1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sílvia Fernanda da Rocha-Rodrigues Mendes

19 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-12625Does an episode of COVID-19 affect the prevalence and trajectory of frailty in community- or institution-dwelling individuals? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dal Bello-Haas,

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 Aug 03 2024 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,

Sílvia Fernanda da Rocha-Rodrigues Mendes

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a systematic review protocol that aims to answer whether "an episode of COVID-19 affects the prevalence and trajectory of frailty in community-dwelling or institution-dwelling individuals".

The protocol was well designed, following PRISMA recommendations, but I suggest small revisions to make it better for publication.

The title as a question looks strange and I suggest that the authors evaluate the change to: COVID-19 and risk of frailty in

community- or institution-dwelling individuals: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Changing the title, in lines 89 and 90 you should change " examined associations between an episode of COVID-19 and the prevalence and trajectory of frailty in community-dwelling or institutionalized elderly. " to examined associations between an episode of COVID-19 and the risk of frailty in community-dwelling or institutionalized elderly.

Still in the methods, the authors must change this criterion "In addition, the studies published in languages other than English will be excluded from this review", as with online translation tools and artificial intelligence, it is now possible to translate manuscripts written in languages other than English, preventing an important bias in the future systematic review.

Finally, they must include in the protocol that the certainty of the evidence for the main outcome, risk of frailty, will be assessed by GRADE.

**********

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: Ricardo Ney Cobucci

**********

[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. 2024 Nov 15;19(11):e0312163. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312163.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Jul 2024

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS LETTER HAS BEEN UPLOADED - BELOW IS A CUT AND PASTE OF THE UPLOADED DOCUMENT:

July 20, 2024

Sylvia Fernanda da Rocha-Rodrriguez Mendes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. da Rocha-Rodrriguez Mendes,

On behalf of the co-authors, I would like to thank you and the Reviewer for the very thoughtful comments and feedback to enhance our paper.

All comments received via email sent June 19, 2024 have been cut and pasted below in this letter. Our responses follow each comment received and are bolded and highlighted in yellow.

Revisions within the manuscript are evident via track changes; and/or manuscript sections where the revisions were made are noted in this letter because page and line numbers have changed from the original submission, because of additions made, and page and line numbers differ between the marked-up and clean copies.

We believe the comments and feedback received and subsequent revisions have greatly improved our paper and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Vanina Dal Bello-Haas, PT, PhD

FEEDBACK RECEIVED

A. 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

We have reviewed the information found at the links and believe we have adequately addressed PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

Our paper is a systematic review protocol paper, there are no data. We noted this in our original submission; see Manuscript, pg 14.

3. 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.


We have reviewed and believe there are no issues. We have not cited any retracted papers. Note: we have added two references to address Reviewer’s comment regarding needing to add GRADE.

B. Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author



1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses? The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?
Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

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

Regarding #1 to #5 above - thank you.

6. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.


(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a systematic review protocol that aims to answer whether "an episode of COVID-19 affects the prevalence and trajectory of frailty in community-dwelling or institution-dwelling individuals".
The protocol was well designed, following PRISMA recommendations, but I suggest small revisions to make it better for publication.
The title as a question looks strange and I suggest that the authors evaluate the change to: COVID-19 and risk of frailty in
community- or institution-dwelling individuals: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thank you for the positive comment.

We have revised the title of the manuscript as suggested by changing to risk; and, the title is no longer in the form of a question. Our preference is to keep trajectory [course over time] in the title as this is also our focus/what we are interested in examining.

Changing the title, in lines 89 and 90 you should change " examined associations between an episode of COVID-19 and the prevalence and trajectory of frailty in community-dwelling or institutionalized elderly. " to examined associations between an episode of COVID-19 and the risk of frailty in community-dwelling or institutionalized elderly.


We have made this change; also, please see above. Note: we have also changed prevalence to risk in other sections of the manuscript as appropriate.

Still in the methods, the authors must change this criterion "In addition, the studies published in languages other than English will be excluded from this review", as with online translation tools and artificial intelligence, it is now possible to translate manuscripts written in languages other than English, preventing an important bias in the future systematic review.


Thank you for this suggestion.

We agree including English only research articles will be a limitation. We will address this accordingly in our final manuscript.

The recommendation regarding using AI/online translation tools is interesting. We are hesitant to make this change and have provided our rationales for not doing so below:

1. The protocol was registered [International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023468297)]. Our protocol underwent review - only COVID-related protocols underwent peer review at the time of us submitting our registration documents. The reviewers did not make any comments regarding English only articles nor made any recommendations to use AI for translation.

2. We are aware of only a few papers that have used AI for conducting literature searches e.g., Alaniz et al. (2023; The Utility of Artificial Intelligence for Systematic Reviews and Boolean Query Formulation and Translation). We are not aware of any systematic reviews that have used online tools/AI for translation purposes for systematic reviews. Thus, there is no precedence or related processes that have been published/are available that would serve as a guide.

3. As noted by Alaniz et al. (2023; above) many LLM’s training datasets have a very recent cut-off date (e.g., 2021) – this would seriously constrain conducting a comprehensive search, also resulting in incomplete information for our systematic review.

4. Younis et al’s 2024 paper [A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Medicine and Healthcare: Applications, Considerations, Limitations, Motivation and Challenges] highlights that papers published to date describe theoretical potentials of AI tools rather than practical implementations and effective strategies to address real-world challenges, such as correct interpretations, accuracy and reliability.

5. According to El Hawary et al (2023) researchers should always verify AI-assisted work and references to ensure both accuracy and relevance. Similarly, work undertaken with online translation tools may have errors, particularly for more complex material or specialized subject matter e.g., 57.7% accuracy for medical phrase translation (Patil & Davies 2014); translation accuracy rates ranged from 55% to 94% depending on the language (Taira et al 2021). Using these tools would also require verification to ensure correctness and precision of the translation.

Our research team does not have the human or financial resources that would be required to ensure relevance, accuracy and precision of AI-assisted/on-line tool translation of articles published in languages other than English.

Finally, they must include in the protocol that the certainty of the evidence for the main outcome, risk of frailty, will be assessed by GRADE.

This addition has been made Note: we also added this to the abstract to ensure consistency between the abstract and the manuscript.

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: Ricardo Ney Cobucci

Thank you Dr. Cobucci.

Attachment

Submitted filename: JULY 20 2024_PLOS ONE RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

pone.0312163.s003.docx (45KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Milad Khorasani

2 Oct 2024

COVID-19 and the risk and trajectory of frailty in community- or institution-dwelling individuals: Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

PONE-D-24-12625R1

Dear Dr.  PM Dal Bello-Haas,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Milad Khorasani, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. 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

**********

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

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have met most of the recommendations and the manuscript is of improved quality. Congratulations.

**********

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: Ricardo Ney Cobucci

**********

Acceptance letter

Milad Khorasani

6 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-12625R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dal Bello-Haas,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Milad Khorasani

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 Checklist. PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: Recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*.

    (DOC)

    pone.0312163.s001.doc (81.5KB, doc)
    S1 Appendix

    (DOCX)

    pone.0312163.s002.docx (15.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: JULY 20 2024_PLOS ONE RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

    pone.0312163.s003.docx (45KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES