Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32676608›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2020

Objective sensory testing methods reveal a higher prevalence of olfactory loss in COVID-19-positive patients compared to subjective methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mackenzie E Hannum, Vicente A Ramirez, Sarah J Lipson, Riley D Herriman, Aurora K Toskala, Cailu Lin, Paule V Joseph, Danielle R Reed

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mackenzie E HannumMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Vicente A RamirezMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Sarah J LipsonMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Riley D HerrimanMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Aurora K ToskalaMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Cailu LinMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.
Paule V JosephDivision of Intramural Research, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Danielle R ReedMonell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market St, Philadelphia PA 19104.

Funding

INTERDISCIPLINARY TRAINING IN THE CHEMICAL SENSEST32DC000014 · NIDCD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI PAMELA HELEN DALTON, Joel D Mainland · 1989 to 2026
$6.2M
Sensory Science and Metabolism; Molecular and Neuronal MechanismsZIANR000035 · NINR · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH · PI JOSEPH, PAULE · 2018 to 2020
$1.7M
SCENTinel: A Rapid Smell Test for COVID-19 SurveillanceU01DC019578 · NIDCD · MONELL CHEMICAL SENSES CENTER · PI DALTON, PAMELA HELEN, PARMA, VALENTINA · 2021 to 2023
$1.2M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA NR000035NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000014NIDCD NIH HHS U01 DC019578
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has currently infected over 6.5 million people worldwide. In response to the pandemic, numerous studies have tried to identify causes and symptoms of the disease. Emerging evidence supports recently acquired anosmia (complete loss of smell) and hyposmia (partial loss of smell) as symptoms of COVID-19, but studies of olfactory dysfunction show a wide range of prevalence, from 5% to 98%. We undertook a search of Pubmed/Medline and Google Scholar with the keywords "COVID-19," "smell," and/or "olfaction." We included any study that quantified olfactory loss as a symptom of COVID-19. Studies were grouped and compared based on the type of method used to measure smell loss-subjective measures such as self-reported smell loss versus objective measures using rated stimuli-to determine if prevalence rate differed by method type. For each study, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from point estimates of olfactory disturbance rates. We identified 34 articles quantifying anosmia as a symptom of COVID-19, collected from cases identified from January 16 to April 30, 2020. The pooled prevalence estimate of smell loss was 77% when assessed through objective measurements (95% CI of 61.4-89.2%) and 45% with subjective measurements (95% CI of 31.1-58.5%). Objective measures are a more sensitive method to identify smell loss as a result of infection with SARS-CoV-2; the use of subjective measures, while expedient during the early stages of the pandemic, underestimates the true prevalence of smell loss.

Indexed as

anosmiacoronavirusCOVID-19olfactory dysfunctionSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32676608
PMCPMC7359533

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.