ArticleJournal of Parkinson's disease2020
Self-Reported Versus Objectively Assessed Olfaction and Parkinson's Disease Risk.
Article in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-Reported Motor and Nonmotor Symptoms, Prodromal Parkinson's Disease Probability, and Incident Parkinson's Disease in US Farmers.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Article
- Polygenic risk score for Parkinson's disease and olfaction among middle-aged to older women.Parkinsonism & related disorders · 2023Article
- Ambient Air Pollutants and Olfaction among Women 50-79 Years of Age from the Sister Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Assessment of Self-reported Sense of Smell, Objective Testing, and Associated Factors in Middle-aged and Older Women.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2022Article
- Prodromal Cognitive Deficits and the Risk of Subsequent Parkinson's Disease.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- The 8-item NHANES pocket smell testApplied neuropsychology. AdultArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoor olfaction is a prodromal symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD); however, self-reported sense of smell is often dismissed as unreliable.
objectiveTo assess self-reported and objectively assessed sense of smell, independently and jointly, in relation to future risk for PD.
methodsWe conducted a prospective analysis using data from 2,424 participants, ages 71-82 at baseline, from the Health, Aging, and Body Composition study. Exposures were self-reported poor sense of smell or taste and the objectively measured 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test score. The outcome was incident PD, analyzed using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age, sex, race, and cognitive function.
resultsAfter approximately 10 years of follow-up, both self-reported and objectively tested poor sense of smell were independently associated with a higher risk of developing PD: the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 2.8 (1.3, 5.9) and 4.0 (2.1, 7.5), respectively. When analyzed jointly, compared with participants who reported and tested normal, the hazard ratio was 2.2 (1.0, 4.6) for those reported poor sense of smell but tested normal, 3.6 (1.9, 6.9) for reported normal but tested poor, and 7.8 (3.2, 19.4) for both reported and tested poor. We did not find significant interactions between self-reported and objectively tested sense of smell in predicting PD risk.
conclusionThis study provides preliminary evidence that self-reported poor sense of smell or taste should not be simply dismissed as useless in predicting risk of PD. Future studies should confirm our finding and evaluate whether structured questionnaires may further improve the predictability.
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.