ReviewJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2022
How common are taste and smell abnormalities in COVID-19? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Baseline cohort profile: clinical and molecular characterisation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients recruited into a longitudinal COVID-19 cohort study (COVGEN) in Malaysia.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Review
- Incidence and prognosis of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions related to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron strain infection in China: A national multicenter survey of 35,566 individuals.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024Article
- Global research Activity on olfactory marker protein (OMP): A bibliometric and visualized analysis.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Long COVID-19-related and non-COVID-19 postviral olfactory dysfunction a comparative MRI study focusing on the olfactory cleft and bulbs.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOlfactory and gustatory dysfunction (OGD) are important early clinical symptoms of COVID-19. We aim to calculate the pooled prevalence of these symptoms and discuss the likely implications on clinical practice such as their use as screening tools and potential prognosis indicators.
methodsUsing a combination of keywords and medical subject headings, we searched for observational studies in the following five databases: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Two authors independently screened and selected the final articles according to the inclusion criteria. Two investigators independently assessed the risk of bias in individual studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. The reported outcome of the pooled analysis was the prevalence of OGD calculated using a random-effect model. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to report results.
resultsSeventeen studies with a total sample size of 4149 were included in this meta-analysis. Out of these, 2106 and 2676 patients reported some degree of olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction with COVID-19, respectively. The reported outcomes were in terms of pooled prevalence, with gustatory dysfunction being 57.33% and olfactory dysfunction being 59.69%, a significantly high occurrence.
conclusionThere is a high occurrence of smell and taste impairment in COVID-19. Given the lack of objective testing for detecting OGD in most studies, the high prevalence found is likely to be an underestimation of the true prevalence. This implies that physicians must use them as reliable early indicators of COVID-19 and employ them before using expensive tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.