Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36799976›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

Self-assessment of olfactory function using the "Sniffin' Sticks".

Yiling Mai, Marie Klockow, Antje Haehner, Thomas Hummel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yiling Mai *Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste Clinic, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. Yling.Mai@uniklinikum-dresden.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7123-6051
Marie Klockow *Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste Clinic, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Antje HaehnerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste Clinic, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas HummelDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste Clinic, Technical University of Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Technische Universität Dresden · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik · DE

Funding

China Scholarship Council No.202108440242
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA precise and reliable test of the olfactory function is indispensable for the diagnosis of the olfactory disorder (OD). Despite of this, in a clinical context, often there is no place in daily routine for time-consuming procedures. This study aimed to examine if the assessment of olfactory function using the "Sniffin' Sticks" is suitable for self-assessment.

methodsParticipants comprised 84 healthy control subjects (HC) and 37 OD patients. The "Sniffin' Sticks" test battery consisting of odor threshold (T), discrimination (D) and identification (I) tests was used for self- and assisted assessments. To save time, we applied the 8-item wide step version of the T test and the 8-item D test, whereas the I task remained the same as the original version. The whole test included two sessions, with each session comprising a self-assessment part performed by the participants themselves, and an assisted-assessment part performed by the examiner.

resultsSniffin' Sticks self-assessment was efficient in distinguishing between self-reported HC subjects and OD patients (p's < 0.01), and the scores did not differ significantly from the assisted-assessment (p's > 0.05). In the self-administered I and TDI tests, there was a moderate to excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.51-0.93, p's < 0.01), and a strong to excellent correlation with the assisted assessment (r = 0.71-0.92, p's < 0.01). However, the self-administered T and D tests only exhibited low to moderate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.30-0.72, p's < 0.05) and correlations with the assisted test (r = 0.31-0.62, p's < 0.05).

conclusionsThe Identification self-test is appropriate to be solely applied, and is therefore an easy-to-use alternative for olfactory screening in a larger segment of patients. The whole "Sniffin' Sticks" self-test also shows good measurement properties and is therefore a suitable backup in clinical practice, but improvement is needed due to the simplified D and T self-test.

Indexed as

Olfaction DisordersHumansOdorantsReproducibility of ResultsSelf-AssessmentSensory ThresholdsSmellOlfactory dysfunctionSelf-assessmentSelf-testSniffin’ SticksTest–retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID36799976
PMCPMC10313570
OpenAlexW4321164947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.