ReviewBrazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology
Olfaction disorders: retrospective study.
Review in Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intranasal Corticosteroid Treatment on Recovery of Long-Term Olfactory Dysfunction Due to COVID-19.The Laryngoscope · 2022Trial
- Validation of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) for the Brazilian population.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Observational
- Exhaled Nitric Oxide and Olfactory Dysfunction in Patients with Asthma: Association with Chronic Rhinosinusitis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Olfactory Perception of the Same Stimuli.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Olfactory Dysfunction in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2020Article
- Differentiation of induced pluripotent stem cells for future olfactory repair using an indirect co-culture technique.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2017Article
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
introductionThe smell, subjective phenomenon of great importance, is poorly understood and studied in humans. Physicians with more knowledge about smell disorders tend to consider the phenomenon important and to better manage the diagnosis and its treatment.
aimsFirst to describe a sample of patients presenting with main complaint of disturbances of smell. And second, to show our experience on management and treatment of this disease.
designRetrospective cross-sectional cohort study. MATERIALS AND
methodsSample description and assessment of treatment response in patients with main complaint of hyposmia or anosmia from January 2005 to October 2011.
resultsFrom 38 patients presented with main complaint of an olfactory disorder, 68.4% of the patients were presented with hyposmia and 31,5% with anosmia, with a mean duration of 30.8 months. The main etiologic diagnoses were idiopathic (31.5%), rhinitis (28.9%) and CRS with polyps (10.5%). Responses to treatment with topical steroids and alpha-lipoic acid were variable, as well as in the literature.
conclusionGreater importance should be given to disorders of smell in practice of otolaryngologists, since its large differential diagnosis and the fact that could increase morbidity to patients, impacting on their quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.