ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2022
The diagnostic value of the olfactory evaluation for congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel HemizygousCase reports in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Illuminating the terminal nerve: Uncovering the link between GnRH-1 neuron and olfactory development.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2024Article
- Mixed hypogonadism: a neglected combined form of hypogonadism.Endocrine · 2024Article
- [Olfactory function and olfactory bulbs in patients with Kallmann syndrome].Problemy endokrinologii · 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
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of different olfactory evaluation tools in congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (CHH) patients. Methods: Seventy-one CHH patients were prospectively recruited at Peking Union Medical College Hospital between November 2020 and July 2021. The Chinese Olfactory Function Test (COFT) and Self-reported Olfactory Scale (SROS) were adapted as the subjective tools for the evaluation of olfactory function, and magnetic resonance imaging of olfactory apparatus (MRI-OA) was the objective tool. The olfactory bulb volume (OBV) and the olfactory sulcus depth (OSD) were quantified. Results: Based on the COFT, 36 patients were categorized as having normosmic CHH (nCHH), and the other 35 patients were categorized as having Kallmann syndrome (KS). Among nCHH patients, 35 patients were classified as having normal olfaction and 1 patient had abnormal olfaction by SROS. For KS patients, there were 30 patients grouped into abnormal olfaction, while 5 patients had normal olfaction by SROS. For MRI-OA, 67% (18/27) of nCHH patients showed normal olfactory apparatus, and 33% (9/27) showed bilateral or unilateral olfactory bulb aplasia or hypoplasia. Among KS patients, 96% (27/28) of patients showed bilateral olfactory bulb hypoplasia or aplasia, and 4% (1/28) of patients showed normal olfactory apparatus. All six patients with unilateral olfactory bulb aplasia and three patients with bilateral olfactory bulb aplasia showed normal olfactory function. The accuracy of the SROS in the diagnosis of nCHH and KS was 91.5%, with a sensitivity of 0.857 and a specificity of 0.972, while the accuracy of MRI-OA is 92.7%, with a sensitivity of 0.964 and a specificity of 0.889. Conclusion: SROS and MRI-OA both showed high accuracy to distinguish between KS and nCHH. The abnormal structure of the olfactory apparatus was relatively common in nCHH patients. CHH patients with unilateral olfactory bulb aplasia dysplasia usually had normal olfaction. Normal olfaction without apparent olfactory bulbs is rare but occurred in male CHH patients.
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.