Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31195704›Full record

ArticleNutrients2019

Estimation of Olfactory Sensitivity Using a Bayesian Adaptive Method.

Richard Höchenberger, Kathrin Ohla

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Richard HöchenbergerInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine INM-3, Research Center Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany. richard.hoechenberger@gmail.com.
Kathrin OhlaInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine INM-3, Research Center Jülich, 52428 Jülich, Germany. k.ohla@fz-juelich.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7265-0449

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to smell is crucial for most species as it enables the detection of environmental threats like smoke, fosters social interactions, and contributes to the sensory evaluation of food and eating behavior. The high prevalence of smell disturbances throughout the life span calls for a continuous effort to improve tools for quick and reliable assessment of olfactory function. Odor-dispensing pens, called Sniffin' Sticks, are an established method to deliver olfactory stimuli during diagnostic evaluation. We tested the suitability of a Bayesian adaptive algorithm (QUEST) to estimate olfactory sensitivity using Sniffin' Sticks by comparing QUEST sensitivity thresholds with those obtained using a procedure based on an established standard staircase protocol. Thresholds were measured twice with both procedures in two sessions (Test and Retest). Overall, both procedures exhibited considerable overlap, with QUEST displaying slightly higher test-retest correlations, less variability between measurements, and reduced testing duration. Notably, participants were more frequently presented with the highest concentration during QUEST, which may foster adaptation and habituation effects. We conclude that further research is required to better understand and optimize the procedure for assessment of olfactory performance.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremAdolescentAdultAlgorithmsFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdorantsOlfaction DisordersReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySensory ThresholdsSmellolfactionQUESTsmell sensitivitystaircasethreshold

Identifiers

PMID31195704
PMCPMC6628113

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.