Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767061›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2022

Prevalence of acute olfactory dysfunction differs between variants of SARS-CoV-2-results from chemosensitive testing in wild type, VOC alpha (B.1.1.7) and VOC delta (B.1617.2).

Constantin A Hintschich, Veronika Vielsmeier, Christopher Bohr, Jan Hagemann, Ludger Klimek

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Mechanisms of COVID-19-associated olfactory dysfunction.Neuropathology and applied neurobiology · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Olfactory Function and Olfactory Disorders.Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Author's reply to the Letter to the Editor "The study of olfactory dysfunction in SARS-CoV-2 variants".European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Constantin A HintschichDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Regensburg University Hospital, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. constantin.hintschich@klinik.uni-regensburg.de.
Veronika VielsmeierDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Regensburg University Hospital, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Christopher BohrDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Regensburg University Hospital, Franz-Josef-Strauss-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany.
Jan HagemannDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany.
Ludger KlimekDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany.
University Hospital Regensburg · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlfactory dysfunction is one of the leading symptoms of COVID-19. Previous data suggest a different prevalence between the wild type virus and its subsequent variants. Here, we report on a prospective study to psychophysically compare olfactory function in acute SARS-CoV-2 infection between wild type, VOC alpha and VOC delta.

methodsSARS-CoV-2 was confirmed by reverse-transcription quantitative real-time PCR and virus variants were differentiated by high-sensitive next-generation sequencing. Home-quarantined were sent a validated and blinded smell identification test. A detailed instruction ensured correct self-administration.

resultsA total of 125 patients were included in study. Patients with the wild type of SARS-CoV-2 self-evaluated their olfactory function significant lower on the visual analog score compared patients with the VOCs alpha or delta (4.1 ± 1.5 vs. 6.8 ± 2.9 and 7.3 ± 0.9; p < 0.001). Likewise, a significant difference of the prevalence of psychophysically confirmed hyposmia (wild type: 73%; alpha: 41%; delta 48%; p < 0.01) and smell test score (48 ± 25% vs. 70 ± 23% and 67 ± 18%; p < 0.01) could be seen between wild type on one side and VOCs alpha and delta on the other side.

conclusionIn this study, both self-reports and psychophysical testing revealed a significant higher prevalence of olfactory impairment in the wild type of SARS-CoV-2 compared to the VOCs alpha and delta.

Indexed as

COVID-19Olfaction DisordersHumansPrevalenceProspective StudiesSARS-CoV-2SmellCOVID-19OlfactionSARS-CoV-2Smell

Identifiers

PMID35767061
PMCPMC9243797
OpenAlexW4283720844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.