The Evolution of Long COVID Research, 2020 to 2025: A Bibliometric Analysis with Implications for Clinical Practice and Policy

Introduction/Background: Since the pandemic started, studies on long COVID have expanded significantly. This bibliometric analysis maps the field’s evolution from January 2020 to March 2025, providing a macro-level understanding of research trends and informing clinical practice and health policy. Methods: We performed a systematic bibliometric review of 9729 publications indexed in the Scopus database. Utilising VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) and Biblioshiny (Bibliometrix R package, version 4.1), we analysed annual growth rates, country and institutional contributions, co-authorship networks, and thematic clusters. The study followed RIBA and GLOBAL reporting guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and clinical relevance. Results: We found 7867 articles and 1862 reviews, with an average document age of 2.13 years and 19.2 citations per document. Scientific output increased at an annual rate of 19.81%, reaching a definitive production peak in 2024, with 64,027 authors, 10.3 co-authors per document, and 24.97% international co-authorship. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom were the most significant contributors, with the University of California and Oxford University emerging as primary research hubs. Thematic mapping revealed 23,803 keywords plus and 13,991 author keywords. Key research gaps included limited interventional evidence, which represented less than 2% of the corpus; sparse paediatric-related research accounting for only 4.2%; and persistent geographic imbalance, particularly the underrepresentation of low- and middle-income countries. Conclusions: The long COVID research landscape is dynamic and collaborative but exhibits geographic and topical imbalances. To improve patient outcomes, stakeholders should pivot from observational mapping toward interventional trials. Priorities should include fostering inclusive international collaborations, addressing the paediatric research gap, and evaluating integrated service delivery models to manage this complex, multisystemic condition.