SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2023
The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review of tools and their content validity.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19.Infection & chemotherapy · 2025Review
- Towards universal chemosensory testing: needs, barriers, and opportunities.Chemical senses · 2025Article
- Experts' content validation of the parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test (PARPHAIT): A qualitative study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Determinants of persistence and recovery of chronic coronavirus disease 2019 chemosensory dysfunction.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Article
- Factors Associated With Persisting Olfactory Dysfunction After COVID-19.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2025Article
- Updated Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Long COVID.Infection & chemotherapy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of overview of the tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction, including parosmia and phantosmia, following COVID-19 illness. This could have an impact on the diagnosis and treatment offered to patients. Additionally, the formulations of symptoms are inconsistent and often unclear, and consensus around the wording of questions and responses is needed. Aim of study: The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of tools used to assess qualitative olfactory dysfunction after COVID-19, in addition to addressing the content validity (i.e., item and response formulations) of these tools. Methods: MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched 5 Results: The assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction is characterized by heterogeneity, inconsistency, and lack of validated tools to determine the presence and degree of symptoms. Several tools with overlapping and distinct features were identified in this review, of which some were thorough and detailed, while others were merely assessing the presence of symptoms as a binary measure. Item and response formulations are also inconsistent and often used interchangeably, which may lead to confusion, incorrect diagnoses, and inappropriate methods for solving the problem. Conclusions: There is an unmet need for a reliable and validated tool for assessing qualitative olfactory dysfunction, preferably one that also captures quantitative olfactory issues (i.e., loss of smell), to ensure time-effective and specific assessment of the ability to smell. A consensus around the formulation of items and response options is also important to increase the understanding of the problem, both for clinicians, researchers, and the patient, and ultimately to provide the appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Registration and protocol: The URL is https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=351621. A preregistered protocol was submitted and accepted (12.09.22) in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42022351621.
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.