ReviewLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Systematic review: Validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of the electrogustometer.
Review in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for chemotherapy-induced dysgeusia in patients receiving dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin therapy: a retrospective observational study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Observational
- Taste Disorders After Middle Ear Surgery: Chorda Tympani Nerve Injury and Quality of Life.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2024Article
- Time-frequency analysis of gustatory event related potentials (gERP) in taste disorders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Systematic review: Validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of the electrogustometer.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: What are the electrogustometer's (EGM) validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy in assessing taste sensation in adults compared to other taste tests? Data Sources: PubMed Medline, Elseviers's Embase, and the six databases of Cochrane Library. Methods: We conducted a systematic search on December 20, 2022, consisting of synonyms for EGM. We considered randomized controlled trials and observational studies with original data for inclusion if they included adults who underwent electrogustometry. Articles were excluded if no analysis regarding validity, reliability, or diagnostic accuracy had been performed or if these analyses could not be performed with the published data. Results: Nineteen articles discussing 18 studies were included for data extraction. The included studies carry a high risk of bias. Overall, the association between a variety of reference taste tests and EGM was moderate or weak with correlation coefficients ranging from -0.51 to 0.40 with one outlier of -0.74 found in one study correlating EGM and taste solutions. Test-retest reliability was good with reported correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 1.0. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of EGM in identifying abnormal taste function varied widely between the four studies on diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion: The included studies in this review lack the required standards regarding study design to draw firm conclusions about the validity, reliability, and diagnostic accuracy of the EGM. Future research is needed to assess these measurement properties. Based on the reported results, we would not recommend using the EGM as a screening test for taste disturbance in clinical practice. Level of Evidence: NA.
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.