ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023
Applicability of Sniffin' Sticks Identification Test as a Screening Tool for Olfactory Dysfunction in Northeast China.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The PEA Bead Test as a Screening Tool for Olfactory Dysfunction: A Preliminary Study.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Because most case of smell loss are unrecognized, a valid and reliable screening test for olfactory function is needed. The Sniffin' Sticks test is one of the most widely used olfactory tests. As olfaction can be affected by environment and social background, we investigated the regional applicability of Sniffin' Sticks identification subtest as a screening tool. MATERIAL AND METHODS Normosmic volunteers were recruited between May 2021 and August 2021. We collected data on participants' age, sex, and educational level. The Self-Reported Mini-Olfactory Questionnaire and identification test of Sniffin' Sticks test battery were used to assess their olfactory function. RESULTS A total of 688 subjects (316 male, 371 female) volunteered for the screening test. The mean age of participants was 30±7.69 years (range, 15-63 years), and the average score of all subjects was 12.7±0.81 points. The 3 least recognized items among all 16 tests were lemon (correct identification rate 5.4%), clove (correct identification rate 1.5%), and apple (correct identification rate 0.7%). For Self-Reported Mini-Olfactory Questionnaire, 48 of the 687 subjects (7%) stated that they could not recognize the smell of freshly mowed grass. CONCLUSIONS We investigated the applicability of using Sniffin' Sticks Identification test and Self-MOQ as a screening tool for olfactory dysfunction in northeast China. Most of the subjects enrolled in this study failed to reach the normative standard for their age groups in the Sniffin' Sticks test. We suggest the deletion or replacement of items with extremely low correct identification rates and that physicians who use the Sniffin's Sticks test in clinical practice test the applicability in advance to avoid misdiagnosis.
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.