ArticleMedicina clinica (English ed.)2023
Persistent olfactory dysfunction in mild COVID-19 patients: A descriptive study of the characteristics and association with other symptoms.
Article in Medicina clinica (English ed.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Post-COVID olfactory dysfunction continues to be studied due to the controversy of the mechanisms involved. The aim was to investigate the olfactory dysfunctions in association with other post-COVID symptoms. Material and methods: Observational, descriptive and single-center study. The patients had confirmed mild COVID-19 and subjective olfactory dysfunction of more than a month of evolution, which was assessed by Sniffin' Sticks Olfactory Test. Results: A total of 86 patients participated. The mean age was 37.2 years (SD 9.82). 70.9% reported parosmia and 46.5% symptoms of brain fog. A pathological test result was obtained in 72.1% of the participants. The most failed pen was 11 (apple) in 76.7%. Anosmia of pen 15 (anise) was reported more frequently in 24.4% and cacosmia of pen 9 (garlic) in 27.9%. We observed a significant association between patients who reported parosmias and brain fog (RR 2.18; Conclusion: There is some pathological selectivity for certain test pens, a higher prevalence of cognitive symptoms and many patients with combined parosmia and brain fog.
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.