ArticleChemical senses2023
A quick test to objectify smell and taste dysfunction at home: a proof of concept for the validation of the chemosensory perception test.
Article in Chemical senses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-care smell testing for evaluation of olfactory function: a narrative review of clinical utility.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies have shown the efficacy of a home test for the self-evaluation of olfactory and gustatory functions in quarantined coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients. However, testing was often limited to COVID-19 participants, and the accuracy of home test kits was rarely compared to standardized testing. This study aims at providing proof of concept for the validation of the new Chemosensory Perception Test (CPT) developed to remotely assess orthonasal olfactory, retronasal olfactory, and gustatory functions in various populations using common North American household items. In the 2 experiments, a total of 121 participants irrespective of having olfactory and/or gustatory complaints from various causes (COVID-19, sinunasal, post-viral, idiopathic) were tested first, with one or many of the following tests: (i) a brief chemosensory questionnaire, (ii) an olfactory test-Sniffin' Sticks Test (SST) or University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), and/or (iii) a gustatory test-Brief Waterless Empirical Taste Test (B-WETT). We then applied the CPT which yielded 3 different subscores, namely orthonasal, retronasal, and gustatory CPT scores. The orthonasal CPT score was significantly correlated with SST (ρ = 0.837, P < 0.001) and UPSIT (ρ = 0.364, P < 0.001) scores, and exhibited an excellent accuracy to identify olfactory dysfunction (OD) as compared to SST (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.923 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.822-1.000], P < 0.001). The retronasal CPT score but not the gustatory CPT score allowed to distinguish between participants with or without subjective gustatory complaint (AUC: 0.818 [95% CI, 0.726-0.909], P < 0.001). The CPT has the ability to identify OD and to quantify subjective gustatory complaints.
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.