ArticleThe Laryngoscope2022
Dedicated Olfaction and Taste Items do not Improve Psychometric Performance of the SNOT-22.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unilateral Versus Bilateral Endoscopic Resection of Olfactory Neuroblastoma: Pooled Analysis From Prospective and Retrospective Multicenter Data.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2025Article
- A scoping review of Rasch analysis and item response theory in otolaryngology: Implications and future possibilities.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- [A prospective study of the effect of functional endoscopic sinus surgery on the recovery of olfactory function in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrevious work has shown the chemosensory dysfunction item of the 22-item Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) that assesses problems with "taste/smell" has poor psychometric performance compared with other items on the SNOT-22, which we have hypothesized is due to the simultaneous assessment of two different senses. Our aim was to determine whether distinct smell and taste items in the SNOT-22 would improve psychometric performance.
methodsOne hundred and eighty-one CRS patients were recruited and completed the SNOT-22. Additional items querying problems with the senses of "smell" and "taste," using the same response scale and recall period were given to study participants. Item response theory (IRT) was used to determine IRT parameters, including item discrimination, difficulty, and information provided by each SNOT-22 item.
resultsConfirming previous studies, the chemosensory item of the SNOT-22 (reflecting "taste/smell") had poor psychometric performance. Use of a distinct smell or taste item instead of the combined "taste/smell" item did not improve psychometric performance. However, a dedicated smell question resulted in a left shift of threshold parameters, showing that the dedicated smell item better captures moderate CRS disease burden than the original taste/smell item of the SNOT-22, which by virtue of near-identical IRT parameters appears to more greatly reflect problems with taste.
conclusionsA dedicated smell- or taste-specific item, rather than the combined "taste/smell" item currently in the SNOT-22 does not provide significantly greater psychometric performance. However, a dedicated smell item may better capture moderate CRS disease burden compared with the current chemosensory item on the SNOT-22. Laryngoscope, 132:1644-1651, 2022.
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.