ArticlePloS one2022
Analysis of conductive olfactory dysfunction using computational fluid dynamics.
Article in PloS one, 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Olfactory Sequelae of Nasal Surgeries: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-facialePooled it
- [Research progress on the improvement of olfactory function by different surgical procedures for chronic rhinosinusitis].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2026Review
- Prevalence and Associated Factors of Olfactory and Gustatory Loss in Patients With Nasal Septal Deviation.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conductive olfactory dysfunction (COD) is caused by an obstruction in the nasal cavity and is characterized by changeable olfaction. COD can occur even when the olfactory cleft is anatomically normal, and therefore, the cause in these cases remains unclear. Herein, we used computational fluid dynamics to examine olfactory cleft airflow with a retrospective cohort study utilizing the cone beam computed tomography scan data of COD patients. By measuring nasal-nasopharynx pressure at maximum flow, we established a cut-off value at which nasal breathing can be differentiated from combined mouth breathing in COD patients. We found that increased nasal resistance led to mouth breathing and that the velocity and flow rate in the olfactory cleft at maximum flow were significantly reduced in COD patients with nasal breathing only compared to healthy olfactory subjects. In addition, we performed a detailed analysis of common morphological abnormalities associated with concha bullosa. Our study provides novel insights into the causes of COD, and therefore, it has important implications for surgical planning of COD, sleep apnea research, assessment of adenoid hyperplasia in children, and sports respiratory physiology.
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.