ArticleFrontiers in allergy2022
Olfactory and neurological outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 from acute infection to recovery.
Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal evaluation of neurocognitive outcomes in a cohort with persistent post-COVID olfactory dysfunction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- The Glymphatic-Venous Axis in Brain Clearance Failure: Aquaporin-4 Dysfunction, Biomarker Imaging, and Precision Therapeutic Frontiers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Olfactory Dysfunction After SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the RECOVER Adult Cohort.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Apoptosis and turnover disruption of olfactory sensory neurons in eosinophilic chronic rhinosinusitis.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2024Review
- Olfaction and neurocognition after COVID-19: a scoping review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Educational objective: To investigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on sinonasal quality of life, olfaction, and cognition at different stages of viral infection and evaluate the association between olfaction and cognition in this population cohort. Objectives: While olfactory dysfunction (OD) is a frequently reported symptom of COVID-19 (98% prevalence), neurocognitive symptoms are becoming more apparent as patients recover from infection. This study aims to address how different stages of infection [active infection (positive PCR test, symptomatic) vs. recovered (7 days post-symptoms)] compared to healthy control patients influence sinonasal quality of life, olfactory function, and cognition. Study design: Prospective, longitudinal, case-control. Methods: Participants completed the SNOT-22, University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) and validated cognitive examinations to assess degree of smell loss and neurocognitive function at baseline and at 1 and 3 months for the active group and 3 months for the recovered group. Self-reported olfactory function and overall health metrics were also collected. Results: The recovered group had the lowest average UPSIT score of 27.6 compared to 32.7 (active) and 32.6 (healthy control). 80% ( Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection was found to impact olfactory function in a delayed fashion with significant impact despite recovery from active infection. Although olfactory function improved, decrements in cognitive processing speed were detected in our cohort.
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.