ArticleHNO2022
High prevalence of long-term olfactory dysfunction confirmed by olfactory testing after a community COVID-19 outbreak.
Article in HNO, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oral Manifestations in the Post COVID-19 Condition: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Reviews in medical virology · 2025Pooled it
- Post COVID-19 and Long COVID Symptoms in Otorhinolaryngology-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Long COVID: a narrative review of the clinical aftermaths of COVID-19 with a focus on the putative pathophysiology and aspects of physical activity.Oxford open immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe prevalence of long-term olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in participants suffering from sudden chemosensory loss due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. Furthermore, evaluations of the reliability of participants' self-reporting of olfactory function (SOF) and gustatory function (SGF) using extended objective psychophysical testing are missing.
methodsIn this population-based cohort study in a PCR-tested community in Thuringia, Germany, olfactory function was extensively examined 4 months after a COVID-19 outbreak using the "Sniffin Sticks" test battery to determine the TDI
resultsOf 43 adult convalescents (median age: 68 years; 58% female) after SARS-CoV‑2 infection, 18 participants (42%) had olfactory complaints due to SOF, one participant (2%) complained of taste disturbance due to SGF. The TDI
conclusionThe SOF was reliable, especially for participants who felt a sudden chemosensory dysfunction during the outbreak. At 4 months after SARS-CoV‑2 infection, a high proportion of participants were dysosmic, whereas nearly all of them had normal taste function.
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.