Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35266981›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2022

Assessment of Self-reported Sense of Smell, Objective Testing, and Associated Factors in Middle-aged and Older Women.

Zichun Cao, Aiwen Yang, Aimee A D'Aloisio, Lourdes Suarez, Sandra Deming-Halverson, Chenxi Li, Zhehui Luo, Jayant M Pinto, Emily J Werder, Dale P Sandler and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Olfaction and Coronary Heart Disease.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and poor olfaction in women.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Zichun CaoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing.
Aiwen YangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing.
Aimee A D'AloisioSocial & Scientific Systems, DLH Holdings Corporation, Durham, North Carolina.
Lourdes SuarezSocial & Scientific Systems, DLH Holdings Corporation, Durham, North Carolina.
Sandra Deming-HalversonSocial & Scientific Systems, DLH Holdings Corporation, Durham, North Carolina.
Chenxi LiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing.
Zhehui LuoDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing.
Jayant M PintoDepartment of Surgery, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Emily J WerderEpidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Dale P SandlerEpidemiology Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Honglei ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, East Lansing.
Michigan State University · USSocial and Scientific Systems (United States) · USNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USUniversity of Chicago · US

Funding

Environmental and Genetic Risk Factors For Breast Cancer: The Sister StudyZIAES044005 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SANDLER, DALE P · 2009 to 2025
$22.7M
Pilot Program CoreP30ES027792 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Gokhan M. Mutlu, Gail S Prins · 2017 to 2026
$13.6M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES027792
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Poor olfaction is common in older adults and signifies multiple adverse health outcomes, but it often goes unrecognized. Objective: To characterize the self-awareness of poor olfaction in women, including its prevalence, associated factors, reporting reliability, validity against an objective test, and factors associated with validity. Design, Setting, and Participants: These cross-sectional survey data and a case-control subsample were taken from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' Sister Study. Of 41 118 participants (aged 41-85 years) who reported olfaction in 2014 through 2016, 3406 (aged 50-79 years) reported olfaction again in 2018 through 2019 and completed the 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test, version A, including 2353 women who self-reported poor olfaction in 2014 through 2016 and 1053 women who reported normal olfaction. Data analyses were performed between May 28, 2021, and December 23, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported (yes/no) and objectively tested poor olfaction defined as a Brief Smell Identification Test score of 9 or lower. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess factors that might be associated with the prevalence and reporting accuracy of self-reported olfaction. In subsample analyses, the sampling strategy was accounted for to extrapolate data to eligible cohort samples. Results: Of the 41 118 women (mean [SD] age, 64.3 [8.7] years) included in the analysis, 3322 (8.1%) self-reported poor olfaction. Higher prevalence was associated with older age, not being married, current smoking status, frequent coffee drinking, overweight or obesity, less than optimal health, Parkinson disease, cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety, and seasonal allergy, whereas a lower prevalence was associated with non-Hispanic Black race and physical activity. In the subsample analyses, olfaction status reported 3 years apart showed a modest agreement (κ, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.51-0.61). The prevalence of objectively tested poor olfaction was 13.3% (95% CI, 11.5%-15.0%), and in contrast with self-reports, it was twice as high in non-Hispanic Black women as in non-Hispanic White women (24.5% vs 12.5%). Compared with objective tests, self-reports showed a low sensitivity (22.6%; 95% CI, 19.6%-25.6%), especially in non-Hispanic Black women (12.4%; 95% CI, 7.0%-17.8%). The specificity was uniformly high (>90%). Among participants who reported poor olfaction, higher odds of true vs false positives were associated with age older than 60 years (60-64 years old, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.51-1.87; 65-69 years old, 2.26; 95% CI, 2.03-2.51; 70-74 years old, 3.34; 95% CI, 3.00-3.73; ≥75 years old, 5.17; 95% CI, 4.43-6.03), non-Hispanic Black race (2.00; 95% CI, 1.70-2.36), no college education (1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.48), underweight (1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.88), fair or poor health (1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.54), and Parkinson disease (7.60; 95% CI, 5.60-10.32). Among those with objectively tested poor olfaction, lower odds of true positives vs false negatives were associated with Black race (0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, the self-awareness and reporting accuracy of poor olfaction in middle-aged and older women were low, particularly in non-Hispanic Black women. Given its potential health implications, awareness of this common sensory deficit should be raised.

Indexed as

Parkinson DiseaseSmellAgedCase-Control StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID35266981
PMCPMC8914911
OpenAlexW4221000647

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.