ArticlePloS one2022
Chemosensory deficits are best predictor of serologic response among individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of tools and their content validity.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Age-associated differences in mucosal and systemic host responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Olfactory immunology: the missing piece in airway and CNS defence.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSmell and taste alteration are closely linked to infection with SARS-CoV-2 and may be associated with a more indolent disease course. Serologic response rates among individuals with mild disease remains limited. We sought to identify whether chemosensory changes associated with COVID-19 were predictive of a serologic response. STUDY
designCross-sectional study.
methodsThe sample consisted of 306 adults (≥18 years old) volunteering for convalescent plasma donation following perceived COVID-19 illness from April-June 2020. Documentation of COVID-19 PCR status, clinical symptoms at time of illness, and treatment course occurred at the time of serologic analysis, where we assessed chemosensory function using patient-perceived deficits. We implemented previously validated ELISA screening to determine serologic status regarding anti-Spike immunoglobulins. Statistical analysis using stepwise logistic models were employed to identify predictive factors of serologic response.
resultsOf 306 patients undergoing serologic and chemosensory evaluation, 196 (64.1%) and 195 (63.7%) reported subjective olfactory and taste dysfunction, respectively, during the first two weeks of COVID-19 infection. In unadjusted models, the odds of developing suprathreshold IgG antibody titers were 1.98 times higher among those who reported altered smell (95% CI 1.14-3.42, p = 0.014) and 2.02 times higher among those with altered taste (95% CI 1.17-3.48, p = 0.011) compared to those with normal smell and taste. Multivariable logistic models adjusting for sex, age, race/ethnicity, symptom duration, smoking status and comorbidities index demonstrated that altered smell and taste remained significant predictors of positive anti-spike IgG response (smell OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.05-3.44, p = 0.033; taste OR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.12-3.61, p = 0.019).
conclusionSubjective chemosensory dysfunction, as self-reported smell or taste deficiency, is highly predictive of serologic response following SARS-CoV-2 infection. This information may be useful for patient counseling. Additional longitudinal research should be performed to better understand the onset and duration of the serologic response in these 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.