Evidence mapPaperPMID 40371997Full record

Trial reportThe Laryngoscope2025

Effect of Olfactory Training in COVID-19 Related Olfactory Dysfunction-A Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Ditte Gertz Mogensen, Kasper Aanaes, Ida Brandt Andersen, Mary Jarden, Vibeke Backer

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05539560 (The Effect of Olfactory Training in Patients With COVID-19 Induced Olfactory Dysfunction - A Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05539560 narecruitingnot on this map

The Effect of Olfactory Training in Patients With COVID-19 Induced Olfactory Dysfunction - A Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorDitte Gertz MogensenRan2022 to 2025Enrolled65ConditionsCOVID-19ArmsOlfactory training with essential oils, Olfactory training with fragrance-free oils
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

5 authors.

Ditte Gertz MogensenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-6521-2555
Kasper AanaesDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7353-0817
Ida Brandt AndersenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mary JardenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3040-8384
Vibeke BackerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7806-7219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOlfactory training is a recommended treatment in patients with olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of olfactory training in COVID-19-induced olfactory dysfunction has been studied; only a few studies have included a placebo group to compare the effect of traditional olfactory training with odor-free olfactory training. In this randomized placebo-controlled trial, we evaluate the effect of olfactory training with essential oils versus olfactory training with placebo oils in patients with post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

methodsSixty-five patients with COVID-19 induced olfactory dysfunction were randomized to the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group performed classic olfactory training with four essential oils (orange, lavender, clove, and peppermint) twice daily for 12 weeks, while the control group performed the same olfactory training but with odor-free placebo oils. Olfactory function was assessed using the Sniffin Sticks extended TDI test at baseline and at follow-up after the 12-week intervention.

resultsThe intervention group did not significantly improve their olfactory function compared to the control group after olfactory training. Additionally, no associations were found between changes in olfactory function after olfactory training and age, gender, rhinitis, time since infection, or pre-infection vaccine. A regression analysis showed that the presence of parosmia was associated with reduced effectiveness of olfactory training.

conclusionsThis study found that 12 weeks of classical olfactory training is not effective in the treatment of COVID-19 induced olfactory dysfunction. Moreover, the study indicates that parosmia reduces the effect of olfactory training significantly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov registration number: NCT05539560.

Indexed as

AromatherapyCOVID-19Oils, VolatileOlfaction DisordersAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOlfactory TrainingSARS-CoV-2SmellTreatment OutcomeOils, VolatileCOVID‐19olfactory dysfunctionolfactory trainingparosmia

Identifiers

PMID40371997
PMCPMC12706558

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.