Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35615205›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2022

Olfaction and Executive Cognitive Performance: A Systematic Review.

Vasudeva Murthy Challakere Ramaswamy, Peter William Schofield

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A new framework for the labeling of odors in the Sniffin' Sticks odor identification test: relevance of familiarity and test-retest assessment.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. A sensorimotor function construct to assess mild cognitive impairment risk.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vasudeva Murthy Challakere RamaswamySchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Peter William SchofieldSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Hunter New England Local Health District · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective tests of olfaction are widely available to aid in the assessment of olfaction. Their clearest role is in the characterization of olfactory changes, either reported by or suspected in a patient. There is a rapidly growing literature concerned with the association of olfactory changes with certain neuropsychiatric conditions and the use of olfactory testing to supplement conventional assessments in clinical and research practice is evolving. Neural pathways important for olfactory processing overlap extensively with pathways important for cognitive functioning, and especially those important for executive functioning, many of which are concentrated in the frontal lobes. Previous work has identified associations between performance on certain olfactory tests (most frequently olfactory identification) and executive functioning and behavioral measures (e.g. of impulsivity). More recently, similar associations have also been identified in non-clinical samples, raising new questions as to the utility of olfactory test scores as proxy measures for non-olfactory phenomena. In this systemic review, we sought to identify studies, both clinical and non-clinical, that investigated the associations of olfaction with performance on tasks sensitive to frontal lobe functioning. Our search criteria led to the identification of 70 studies published in English. We examined in detail and tabulated the data from these studies, highlighted each study's key findings, and critically evaluated these studies. We use the results of this review to reflect on some of the current and future challenges concerning the use of olfactory testing in clinical neuropsychiatric practice and research and speculate on the potential benefits of administering phonemic fluency in combination with olfactory testing to enhance its predictive value.

Indexed as

brain injurycognitionexecutive functioningolfactionreviewtrauma

Identifiers

PMID35615205
PMCPMC9125097
OpenAlexW4229375217

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.