ArticleORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties2024
Subjective versus Psychophysical Measures of Chemosensory Alterations following COVID-19.
Article in ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOlfactory dysfunction is a common symptom of COVID-19. However, subjective perception of olfactory function does not always correlate well with more objective measures. This study seeks to clarify associations between subjective and psychophysical measures of olfaction and gustation in patients with subjective chemosensory dysfunction following COVID-19.
methodsAdults with persistent COVID-19-associated chemosensory disturbance were recruited for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study at a tertiary care institution. Participants provided subjective measures of olfactory and gustatory function and underwent psychophysical assessment using Sniffin' Sticks olfactory and Monell gustatory tests.
resultsData analysis (n = 65) showed a statistically significant association between subjective and psychophysical measures of olfaction (p < 0.001). For each one-point increase in subjectively-reported olfactory ability, there is, on average, a 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.16; p < 0.001) point increase in TDI score while adjusting for age at baseline assessment, sex, and follow-up time. For each one-point increase in subjectively-reported olfactory ability, there is, on average, a 0.04 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.06; p < 0.001) point and 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03, 0.07; p < 0.001) point increase in discrimination and identification scores, respectively, when adjusting for age at baseline assessment, sex, and follow-up time.
conclusionSubjective olfaction shows a mild to moderate association with psychophysical measures, but it fails to comprehensively assess persistent COVID-19-associated chemosensory deficits. The lack of significant association between subjective olfaction and threshold limits the utility of subjective olfaction in tracking recovery. These findings support the push for more widespread psychophysical chemosensory testing.
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.