ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2021
Assessment of olfactory and gustatory functions in COVID-19 patients
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmasking Risk Factors for Post-COVID-19 Olfactory Dysfunction Resulting From Early Stages of the Pandemic: A Case-Control Study of Lost and Lingering Smells.The Permanente journal · 2025Article
- Risk factors for post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients: An observational study based on a survey in a tertiary care center in Türkiye.Tuberkuloz ve toraks · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: This study aims to evaluate of olfactory and gustatory functions of COVID-19 patients and possible risk factors for olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions. Materials and methods: The cross-sectional study included adult patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 in Gazi University Hospital between April 2020 and June 2020. Volunteered patients participated in a survey in which olfactory and gustatory functions and various clinical information were questioned. Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 was also administrated to all patients. Results: A hundred and seventy-one patients participated in this study. Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions rates were 10.5% (n: 18) and 10.5% (n: 18), respectively. Patients without any symptom other than smell and taste dysfunctions were clustered as group 1 and patients who are clinically symptomatic were clustered as group 2. Olfactory dysfunction occurred in 8% of group 1 and 17.4% of group 2 (p = 0.072). Gustatory dysfunction rate of smokers was 19.7% and significantly higher than gustatory dysfunction rate of nonsmokers (5.5%) (p = 0.007). Twenty-seven-point-eight percent of the patients with olfactory dysfunction (n = 5) were male and 72.2% (n: 13) were female. Sex did not show significant effect on rate of olfactory dysfunction. Twenty-five patients participated in psychophysical olfactory function test. No participant reported olfactory dysfunction at the time of test. Of the participants, 64% (n: 16) were normosmic and 36% (n: 9) were hyposmic according to Sniffin’ Stick test. Conclusion: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are more common in patients who are clinically symptomatic than those diagnosed during contact tracing. Objective tests may show that frequency of olfactory dysfunction is greater than frequency of self-reported olfactory dysfunction.
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.