ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology
Olfactory Sensations During Radiation Sessions: A Review.
Review in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of materials and beam currents on ozone generation in proton beam irradiation: a phantom study.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- ASTRO's Advances in Radiation Oncology's Top Downloaded Articles of 2023.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Treatment Complications of Head and Neck Cancers and Rehabilitation Measures: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Light flashes and other sensory illusions perceived in space travel and on ground, including proton and heavy ion therapies.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2024Review
- Abnormal visual and olfactory sensations during radiation therapy: a prospective study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2023Article
- Article
- Synchronization of light flash with the irradiation pulse in proton beam therapy: A case report.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: During radiation therapy sessions, certain patients may perceive smells, particularly in younger populations. The sense of smell generally does not interrupt treatment; hence, it has attracted limited attention from oncologists worldwide. However, in certain cases, the prevention of smell perception may be necessary when treating pediatric patients. In this regard, this study reviewed previous studies pertaining to this unusual phenomenon of smell perception during radiation sessions. Methods and Materials: A PubMed search using the terms "radi*" AND ("olfaction" OR "odor" OR "smell" OR "phantosmia") was performed, and 9 articles related to this sensation were identified. Furthermore, through the references in these 9 articles, 3 additional related studies were identified. Results: Perception of smell during radiation treatment sessions was first reported in 1989. This phenomenon entails the perception of a pungent, repulsive, and unpleasant smell and is generally only observed in the presence of radiation beams. Occasionally, these smell perceptions are also accompanied by visual and gustatory sensations. Patients complain about this sensation more frequently when their olfactory regions are irradiated. Nevertheless, some patients have also reported experiencing this sensation when these areas are not included in the radiation field. Although the intensity of this sensation is low, intervention is required to prevent it. The cause of this perception remains unclear and requires further investigation. Conclusions: Conclusions: During radiotherapy sessions, certain patients may perceive smells. The cause of this perception remains unclear and requires further investigation.
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.