For this metareview it’s the absolute percentage, not a comparison.
Woops, sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
I’m interested in the other studies you think show a similar number relative to a control group.
Hmm, I only remember this one with a similar number and controls, off the top of my head (I might have been thinking of similar numbers for something else):
Among a sample of over 20,000 study participants who tested positive for COVID-19 between 26 April 2020 and 6 March 2021, 13.7% continued to experience symptoms for at least 12 weeks. This was eight times higher than in a control group of participants who are unlikely to have had COVID-19, suggesting that the prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus infection is higher than in the general population.
Of study participants who tested positive for COVID-19, symptom prevalence at 12 weeks post-infection was higher for female participants (14.7%) than male participants (12.7%) and was highest among those aged 25 to 34 years (18.2%).
In contrast, the ONS study compared persistent symptoms lasting 12+ weeks using a survival analysis approach between confirmed COVID-19 cases and age- and sex-matched non-COVID controls, with estimates of 13.7% in cases and just 1.7% in controls.
Prospective versus retrospective data collection: Prospective data collection on ongoing symptoms on a daily basis was uniquely performed in the COVID Symptoms Study, which had the lowest estimates of proportions of cases affected, (2.3% for >12 weeks symptoms).[1] Unpublished analysis of the same individuals asked retrospectively about symptoms using the same questionnaire as in CONVALESCENCE cohorts (inclusive method) revealed very similar proportions with symptoms lasting >12 weeks, ranging from 6% of COVID+ cases in men aged 20-30 to 16% in women aged 40- 50. The COVID Symptoms Study did not count symptoms re-emerging after a week of reporting no symptoms, but although relapse rates were higher in the case population (16.0%) versus non-COVID controls (8.4%; P < 0.0005), this does not account for the difference in reporting rates and suggests that recall bias may operate in retrospective self-reports of symptom duration. The ONS study of persistent symptoms in confirmed infections was based on prospective data [3](symptoms experienced in the last week, collected each week for the month from enrolment and then each month for up to a year); whereas symptom durations for the population prevalence estimate [6] is based on retrospective reporting of the initial (confirmed or suspected) infection.
Woops, sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
Hmm, I only remember this one with a similar number and controls, off the top of my head (I might have been thinking of similar numbers for something else):
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03553-9 (I’m focusing on Positive cases in figure 3, who are not hospitalized; I think this paper has gotten relatively more attention in the community; see this comment)
Some others are discussed here, mostly higher estimates, like 5x-10x higher, though:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.18.21253633v2.full-text, also discussed here and in a reply here (healthcare workers)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778528 (healthcare workers)
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021 / https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007511/S1327_Short_Long_COVID_report.pdf, two links for the same study on a UK sample, specifically these quotes and column ONS-CIS [3][6] in Table 1 in the second link:
Another I got from Scott’s article (which summarizes risk estimates from several and discusses biases): https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776560