Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30264731›Full record

SynthesisBalkan medical journal2019

Retronasal Olfaction Test Methods: A Systematic Review

Hüseyin Özay, Aslı Çakır, Mustafa Cenk Ecevit

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Balkan medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Retronasal Olfactory Function After Olfactory Training: A Prospective Single-Arm Study.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Olfactory Dysfunction: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. q-Powders: a quick test for screening retronasal olfactory disorders with tasteless powders.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  6. Investigations and Outcomes for Olfactory Disorders.Current otorhinolaryngology reports · 2022
    Review
  7. Validation study of a novel approach for assessment of retronasal olfactory function with combination of odor thresholds and identification.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Hüseyin ÖzayDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey
Aslı ÇakırDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, TurkeyORCID 0000-0003-0128-6947
Mustafa Cenk EcevitDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, TurkeyORCID 0000-0002-5809-7322

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This report produces a bibliographic study of psychophysical tests proposed clinical assessments of retronasal olfaction. Aims: We review how these tests can be utilized and discuss their methodological properties. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: We undertook a systematic literature review investigating the retronasal olfaction test methods. PubMed, the free online MEDLINE database on biomedical sciences, was searched for the period from 1984 to 2015 using the following relevant key phrases: “retronasal olfaction”, “orthonasal olfaction”, “olfaction disorders”, and “olfaction test”. For each of the selected titles cited in this study, the full manuscript was read and analyzed by each of the three authors of this paper independently before collaborative discussion for summation and analytical reporting. Two reviewers independently read the abstracts and full texts and categorised them into one of three subgroups as follow, suitable, not-suitable, and unsure. Then they cross-checked the results, and a third reviewer decided assigned the group “unsure” to either the suitable group or the not-suitable group. Fifty eight studies revealed as suitable for review by two authors whereas 13 found not suitable for review. The total amount of 60 uncertain (unsure) or differently categorized articles were further examined by the third author which resulted in 41 approvals and 19 rejections. Hence 99 approved articles passed the next step. Exclusion criteria were reviews, case reports, animal studies, and the articles of which methodology was a lack of olfaction tests. By this way excluded 69 papers, and finally, 30 original human research articles were taken as the data. Results: The study found that the three most widely used and accepted retronasal olfaction test methods are the retronasal olfaction test, the candy smell test and odorant presentation containers. All of the three psychophysical retronasal olfaction tests were combined with orthonasal tests in clinical use to examine and understand the smell function of the patient completely. There were two limitations concerning testing: “the lack concentrations and doses of test materials” and “performing measurements within the supra-threshold zone”. Conclusion: The appropriate test agents and optimal concentrations for the retronasal olfaction tests remain unclear and emerge as limitations of the retronasal olfaction test technique. The first step to overcoming these limitations will probably require identification of retronasal olfaction thresholds. Once these are determined, the concept of retronasal olfaction and its testing methods may be thoroughly reviewed.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, NeurologicalHumansNasal CavityOlfaction DisordersOlfactory BulbSmellOlfaction disordersolfaction testorthonasal olfactionretronasal olfactionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30264731
PMCPMC6335936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.