An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the lightning process intervention examining benefits and harms

To audit the outcomes of patients with long COVID after the lightning process intervention. Retrospective cross-sectional audit. Patients with long COVID were interviewed through telephone regarding their experience and response to the lightning process. Physical, emotional, and overall quality of life; perceived harms of the intervention. None of the 12 participants reported harm from the intervention. 11/12 participants reported being 85% back to normal or more; 8/12 described achieving 85% or greater satisfaction with their emotional, physical, and overall quality of life. 10/12 of the participants reported having heard negative comments about the lightning process but had nonetheless gone ahead with the treatment. This study suggests that the lightning process is a promising and safe intervention for symptoms of long COVID. Primary care clinicians can refer patients for treatment with a high chance of benefit without fear of harm. Randomized, controlled trials are indicated.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1049_24
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.93
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the lightning process intervention examining benefits and harms

Bruce Arroll, Emerald Jenkins, Fiona Moir, David B Menkes
2 citations
Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care
Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
2.93
article

An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the lightning process intervention examining benefits and harms

Bruce Arroll, Emerald Jenkins, Fiona Moir, David B Menkes
article en
2 citations

Abstract

To audit the outcomes of patients with long COVID after the lightning process intervention. Retrospective cross-sectional audit. Patients with long COVID were interviewed through telephone regarding their experience and response to the lightning process. Physical, emotional, and overall quality of life; perceived harms of the intervention. None of the 12 participants reported harm from the intervention. 11/12 participants reported being 85% back to normal or more; 8/12 described achieving 85% or greater satisfaction with their emotional, physical, and overall quality of life. 10/12 of the participants reported having heard negative comments about the lightning process but had nonetheless gone ahead with the treatment. This study suggests that the lightning process is a promising and safe intervention for symptoms of long COVID. Primary care clinicians can refer patients for treatment with a high chance of benefit without fear of harm. Randomized, controlled trials are indicated.

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary CareVol. 14(2)
University of Auckland (NZ)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
2.93
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

An audit of 12 cases of long COVID following the lightning process intervention examining benefits and harms — Bruce Arroll, Emerald Jenkins, et al. · Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS