Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34725952›Full record

SynthesisInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2022

Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction and psychophysical testing in screening for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Minh P Hoang, Phillip Staibano, Tobial McHugh, Doron D Sommer, Kornkiat Snidvongs

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Minh P HoangDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-8878-2905
Phillip StaibanoDepartment of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9095-9543
Tobial McHughDepartment of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9100-9021
Doron D SommerDepartment of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9692-7414
Kornkiat SnidvongsDepartment of Otolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-7537-4718
McMaster University · CAChulalongkorn University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial proportion of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients demonstrate olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (OGD). Self-reporting for OGD is widely used as a predictor of COVID-19. Although psychophysical assessment is currently under investigation in this role, the sensitivity of these screening tests for COVID-19 remains unclear. In this systematic review we assess the sensitivity of self-reporting and psychophysical tests for OGD.

methodsA systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until February 16, 2021. Studies of suspected COVID-19 patients with reported smell or taste alterations were included. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were reported in the outcomes.

resultsIn the 50 included studies (42,902 patients), self-reported olfactory dysfunction showed a sensitivity of 43.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.8%-50.2%), a specificity of 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%-93.9%), and a DOR of 8.74 (95% CI, 6.67-11.46) for predicting COVID-19 infection. Self-reported gustatory dysfunction yielded a sensitivity of 44.9% (95% CI, 36.4%-53.8%), a specificity of 91.5% (95% CI, 87.7%-94.3%), and a DOR of 8.83 (95% CI, 6.48-12.01). Olfactory psychophysical tests analysis revealed a sensitivity of 52.8% (95% CI, 25.5%-78.6%), a specificity of 88.0% (95% CI, 53.7%-97.9%), and a DOR of 8.18 (95% CI, 3.65-18.36). One study used an identification test for gustatory sensations assessment.

conclusionAlthough demonstrating high specificity and DOR values, neither self-reported OGD nor unvalidated and limited psychophysical tests were sufficiently sensitive in screening for COVID-19. They were not suitable adjuncts in ruling out the disease.

Indexed as

COVID-19SmellHumansPhysical ExaminationSelf ReportSensitivity and SpecificityCOVID-19gustatoryolfactorysensitivitysmellspecificitytaste

Identifiers

PMID34725952
PMCPMC8652821
OpenAlexW3210190251

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.