ArticleTurkish archives of otorhinolaryngology2026
Olfactory Training for COVID-19-Related Olfactory Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a high prevalence of olfactory dysfunction (OD), a debilitating condition that significantly impacts quality of life (QoL). While most patients recover their sense of smell, a substantial number experience persistent COVID-OD. Olfactory training (OT) has emerged as a leading, non-invasive therapeutic strategy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on evidence retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Embase through June 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating OT in patients with COVID-OD. The primary outcome was the change in objective olfactory scores, and the secondary outcome was the change in QoL scores. We used STATA software to pool outcomes using standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Ten RCTs involving 628 patients were included in the analysis. Compared to the control group, OT was associated with a significant improvement in objective olfactory scores [SMD=0.30, 95% CI (0.08, 0.51), p=0.01] and QoL [SMD=-0.40, 95% CI (-0.65, -0.15), p<0.001]. The heterogeneity among studies was low for both outcomes (I²=33.69% and I²=37.47%, respectively). OT significantly improves objective olfactory function and QoL in patients with COVID-OD. Despite these positive findings, the results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity in OT protocols and variability among the included studies. Future large-scale, rigorously designed RCTs with standardized OT protocols are necessary to establish definitive clinical practice guidelines.
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.