ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2020
Reduced odor detection and hedonic changes in asymptomatic university students as SARS-CoV-2 emerged locally.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Aerosol droplets have emerged as the primary mode of SARS-Cov-2 transmission and can be spread by infectious asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic persons rendering indicators of latent viral infection essential. Olfactory impairment is now a recognized symptom of COVID-19 and is rapidly becoming one of the most reliable indicators of the disease. We compared olfaction data from asymptomatic students, who were assessed as SARS-CoV-2 was unknowingly spreading locally, to students tested prior to the arrival of the virus. This study was naturalistic by design as testing occurred in the context of four research studies, all of which used the same inclusion/exclusion criteria and the same protocol to objectively assess odor detection, identification, and hedonics with physiological tests. Data from students (Cohort II; N=22) with probable SARS-CoV-2 exposure were compared to students tested just prior to local virus transmission (Cohort I; N=25), and a normative sample of students assessed over the previous four years (N=272). Students in Cohort II demonstrated significantly reduced odor detection sensitivity compared to students in Cohort I (t=2.60; P=.01; d=0.77; CI, 0.17, 1.36), with a distribution skewed towards reduced detection sensitivity (D=0.38; P=.005). Categorically, the exposed group was significantly more likely to have hyposmia (OR=7.74; CI, 3.1, 19.40), particularly the subgroup assessed in the final week before campus closure (OR=13.61; CI, 3.40, 35.66;). The exposed cohort also rated odors as less unpleasant (P<.001, CLES=0.77). A limitation of our study is that participants were not tested for COVID-19 as testing was unavailable in the area. Objective measures of olfaction may detect olfactory impairment in asymptomatic persons who are otherwise unaware of smell loss. The development of cost-effective, objective olfaction tests that could be self-administered regularly could aid in early detection of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, which is vital to combatting this pandemic.
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.