ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Cross-Cultural Validation of the Short Version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements into Italian: Towards Personalized Patient Care.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity and reliability of the Hebrew version of the Brief Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (Brief-QOD) and the Self-Reported Mini Olfactory Questionnaire (Self-MOQ).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment of olfactory dysfunction in rhinosinusitis.European journal of medical research · 2025Review
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patient-Reported Outcome (CRS-PRO) into Hebrew.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of the Arabic Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patient-Reported Outcome (CRS-PRO): Translation and Cultural Adaptation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Validation of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) for the Brazilian population.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the high burden of olfactory dysfunction worldwide, recently increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is mandatory to adopt a specific questionnaire to assess the impact of olfactory impairment on quality of life, to be used in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to adapt and validate the short version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (svQOD-NS) for Italian. In the pilot phase, the Italian version of the questionnaire (ITA-svQOD-NS) was produced following recommended guidelines. It was then given to 50 healthy subjects and 50 patients (affected by either nasal polyposis or septal deviation), and results were compared to those of other widely used questionnaires. Test-retest reliability was assessed on a sample of 25 patients. All 50 patients repeated the questionnaires at one and nine months after surgery. The internal consistency of ITA-svQOD-NS measured with Cronbach α was excellent (α = 0.92). The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was also optimal (0.93; 95%CI: 0.90-0.96). Concurrent validity tested with the Pearson coefficient was significant with all other tests administered; also, concerning responsiveness, statistically significant differences were obtained between pre- and post-operative conditions. ITA-svQOD-NS showed high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and significant correlation with all most-used clinical questionnaires; thus, it can be efficiently applied to assess olfaction-related QoL in the Italian population.
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.