ArticleIranian journal of medical sciences2022
New Modification of Smell Identification Test for the Detection of Malingerers: A Pilot Experimental Study.
Article in Iranian journal of medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical assessment and striatal dopaminergic activity in healthy controls and patients with Parkinson's disease: a Bayesian approach.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
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
Background: A major problem with the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) is its poor sensitivity for malingering detection in a group of people familiar with the test mechanism. This study aimed to evaluate the modification of UPSIT to detect anosmia malingering. Methods: This was a pilot experimental study conducted in 2019 in Tehran. The participants were 60 healthy subjects classified into two groups of 30 people. The first group was requested to deliberately feign a negative result on the Iranian version of UPSIT, Iran Smell Identification Test (ISIT) (malingering group). The second group consisted of participants, who did not scratch the odorant part of ISIT during the tests (anosmia group). ISIT was modified in two steps. At each step, one incorrect option was deleted from the available choices. The number of each group's answers, altered away from the correct choice, was then calculated and compared. Results: The coached malingering group participants were able to feign anosmia in the original ISIT exam. In the modified ISIT, the number of answers changed from correct to wrong during the second stage (from three available choices to two choices) was significantly higher in the anosmia group (P<0.001). In the ROC analysis, the area under the curve was 0.92 (P<0.001). The cut-off of 4.5 for this test showed 93% sensitivity, 82% specificity, and 90% PPV and NPV. Conclusion: The ISIT is not capable of detecting malingering in the coached participants, yet by deleting the choices step-by-step, the sensitivity and specificity of the test increased.
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.