Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26112981›Full record

ArticleHNO2015

[Clinical assessment of olfactory performance - why patient interviews are not enough : A report on lessons learned in planning studies with anosmic patients].

V Schöpf, K Kollndorfer

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in HNO, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Anosmia-A Clinical Review.Chemical senses · 2017
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

V SchöpfInstitut für Psychologie, Universität Graz, Universitätsplatz 2, 8010, Graz, Österreich, veronika.schoepf@uni-graz.at.
K Kollndorfer

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 23205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimOlfactory dysfunction and loss of smell are mostly associated with an immense decrease in the quality of life. The aim of the presented study was to report on particularities in the acquisition of patients with olfactory dysfunction.

methodsDuring July 2011 and May 2014 we were contacted by 300 potential patients with self-reported loss of smell, 95 (54 female, 41 male, mean age 53) of which were invited for clinical testing after phone interviews.

resultsClinical smell testing revealed 46 patients with anosmia, 38 with hyposmia, and 11 with normosmia. Self-assessment of olfactory function only correlated with clinical scores if patients had nearly no olfactory function left. The ability of self-assessment of olfactory function was independent of age or sex. Further, most patients were not able to report on the reason for or the duration of their olfactory dysfunction. DISCUSSION: Our report shows that patients with olfactory dysfunction are hardly ever ably to assess their grade of performance reduction. Awareness among patients with a reduced sense of smell is of great general importance, since it can be an indicator of neurodegenerative diseases. This should especially be noted for patients older than 50 who are not able to indicate a reason for their loss of smell.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Self EvaluationAustriaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMedical History TakingMiddle AgedOlfaction DisordersPatient Care PlanningPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.