ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2021
Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-matrix copper exposure is associated with reduced olfactory bulb volume and odor sensitivity in adolescents.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Associations of combined smoking and drinking with subjective and objective olfactory dysfunction: A secondary dataset analysis of NHANES 2013-2014.Tobacco induced diseases · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the intensity of cigarette odors based on the perception of consumers.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2023Article
- Olfactory dysfunction in passive vs active smoking.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to assess the olfactory functions of passive smokers compared to active smokers and nonsmokers.
methodsThis prospective case-control study included 30 nonsmokers, 30 passive smokers, and 30 active smoker participants. All groups were matched for gender and age. The Sino-Nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22) and Sniffin' Sticks test battery were administered to all subjects. Threshold (T), discrimination (D), and identification (I) scores were noted. Olfactory function was subjectively assessed as 0: severe dysfunction and 5: no problem.
resultsOverall, TDI scores of active smokers (24.78 ± 3.02) and passive smokers (24.90 ± 2.45) were significantly lower than nonsmokers (34.23 ± 3.46). There was no statistically significant difference between passive smokers and smokers (
conclusionsPassive smoking has nearly the same adverse effect on olfactory function as active smoking. The threshold scores are the most negatively affected. The olfactory effect of cigarette smoke may not be directly related to nasal inflammation. Olfactory neuronal pathways should be investigated to elucidate the exact pathophysiology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.
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.