Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34291812›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Interventions for the prevention of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction.

Katie E Webster, Lisa O'Byrne, Samuel MacKeith, Carl Philpott, Claire Hopkins, Martin J Burton

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy of topical steroids for the treatment of olfactory disorders caused by COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Recovery rates and long-term olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Olfactory and gustatory disorders in COVID-19.Allergo journal international · 2022
    Review
  16. Allergo Journal : interdisziplinare Zeitschrift fur Allergologie und Umweltmedizin : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Allergie- und Immunitatsforschung · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Katie E WebsterCochrane ENT, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lisa O'ByrneDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Samuel MacKeithOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Carl PhilpottDepartment of Medicine, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Claire HopkinsENT Department, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Martin J BurtonCochrane UK, Oxford, UK.
Cochrane · GBGuy's Hospital · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSt. Vincent's University Hospital · IEUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR132103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoss of olfactory function is well recognised as a cardinal symptom of COVID-19 infection, and the ongoing pandemic has resulted in a large number of affected individuals with abnormalities in their sense of smell. For many, the condition is temporary and resolves within two to four weeks. However, in a significant minority the symptoms persist. At present, it is not known whether early intervention with any form of treatment (such as medication or olfactory training) can promote recovery and prevent persisting olfactory disturbance. 

objectivesTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions that have been used, or proposed, to prevent persisting olfactory dysfunction due to COVID-19 infection. A secondary objective is to keep the evidence up-to-date, using a living systematic review approach.  SEARCH

methodsThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; Cochrane ENT Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished studies. The date of the search was 16 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including participants who had symptoms of olfactory disturbance following COVID-19 infection. Individuals who had symptoms for less than four weeks were included in this review. Studies compared any intervention with no treatment or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were the presence of normal olfactory function, serious adverse effects and change in sense of smell. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of parosmia, change in sense of taste, disease-related quality of life and other adverse effects (including nosebleeds/bloody discharge). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.  MAIN

resultsWe included one study of 100 participants, which compared an intranasal steroid spray to no intervention. Participants in both groups were also advised to undertake olfactory training for the duration of the trial. Data were identified for only two of the prespecified outcomes for this review, and no data were available for the primary outcome of serious adverse effects. Intranasal corticosteroids compared to no intervention (all using olfactory training) Presence of normal olfactory function after three weeks of treatment was self-assessed by the participants, using a visual analogue scale (range 0 to 10, higher scores = better). A score of 10 represented "completely normal smell sensation". The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of intranasal corticosteroids on self-rated recovery of sense of smell (estimated absolute effect 619 per 1000 compared to 520 per 1000, risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.68; 1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Change in sense of smell was not reported, but the self-rated score for sense of smell was reported at the endpoint of the study with the same visual analogue scale (after three weeks of treatment). The median scores at endpoint were 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 10) for the group receiving intranasal corticosteroids, and 10 (IQR 5 to 10) for the group receiving no intervention (1 study; 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is very limited evidence regarding the efficacy of different interventions at preventing persistent olfactory dysfunction following COVID-19 infection. However, we have identified a small number of additional ongoing studies in this area. As this is a living systematic review, the evidence will be updated regularly to incorporate new data from these, and other relevant studies, as they become available.  For this (first) version of the living review, we identified a single study of intranasal corticosteroids to include in this review, which provided data for only two of our prespecified outcomes. The evidence was of very low certainty, therefore we were unable to determine whether intranasal corticosteroids may have a beneficial or harmful effect.

Indexed as

Administration, IntranasalAdrenal Cortex HormonesBiasCitrusConfidence IntervalsCOVID-19HumansMometasone FuroateOlfaction DisordersPhytotherapyRecovery of FunctionSyzygiumVisual Analog ScaleAdrenal Cortex HormonesMometasone Furoate

Identifiers

PMID34291812
PMCPMC8406518
OpenAlexW4205855651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.