ArticleAmerican journal of otolaryngology
Five-item odorant test as an indicator of COVID-19 infection in a general population.
Article in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04431908 (Validation of a Rapid Quantitative Test for Loss of Smell in COVID-19 Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Validation of a Rapid Quantitative Test for Loss of Smell in COVID-19 Subjects
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of tools and their content validity.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Point-of-care smell testing for evaluation of olfactory function: a narrative review of clinical utility.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- A new method for automated olfactory threshold testing.Chemical senses · 2025Article
- The detection of smell disorder depends on the clinical tools.American journal of otolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the utility of a 5-item odorant test (U-Smell-It™) in determining COVID-19 status in COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive and -negative participants.
methodsSymptoms, COVID-19 status, and 5-item odorant test results were collected from general population COVID-19 testing in Louisiana (n = 1042), and routine COVID-19 screening of healthcare workers in a nursing home in Florida (n = 278) (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04431908).
resultsIn the general population COVID-19 testing site, a cutoff point of ≤2 (0, 1, or 2 correct answers out of 5) achieved sensitivity of 40.0% (95% CI: 26.4%-54.8%) and specificity of 89.2% (95% CI: 87.1%-91.1%) in detecting COVID-19 infection. Within this population, analysis of individuals with no self-reported loss of smell/taste and runny/stuffy nose resulted in sensitivity of 38.1% (95% CI: 18.1%-61.6%) and specificity of 92.3% (95% CI: 89.1%-93.4%), while analysis of individuals with self-reported loss of smell/taste and/or runny/stuffy nose resulted in sensitivity of 41.4% (95% CI: 23.5%-61.1%) and specificity of 82.4% (95% CI: 77.7%-86.5%).
conclusionsThe quick turnaround time, low cost, reduced resource requirement, and ease of administering odorant tests provide many advantages as an indicator sign to help flag a molecular diagnostic COVID-19 test with relatively high specificity. Our results suggest that this odorant testing for olfactory dysfunction may be a viable option in pre-screening COVID-19 infection. This tool has the potential to allow for continued monitoring and surveillance, while helping mitigate surges of COVID-19 variants. Further investigation is warranted to observe the extent to which odorant testing might be applied in a serial testing scenario.
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.