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 Surgery2024
Olfactory training with four and eight odors: comparison with clinical testing and olfactory bulb volumetrics.
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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of olfactory-visual combined training on post-viral olfactory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial.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 · 2026Trial
- Long-term follow-up of autologous nasal epithelial stem cell transplantation for congenital olfactory disorders in children.World journal of stem cells · 2025Article
- Article
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
purposePost-infectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD) is one of the most common causes of olfactory impairment but has limited treatment options. Recently, olfactory training (OT) has been considered an effective treatment method; however, several questions have arisen regarding its optimal scheme. The aim of this study was to assess whether an OT scheme with 8 odors is more effective than the classic OT scheme with 4 odors by comparing psychophysical test results and olfactory bulb (OB) volumetrics.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, 72 patients with PIOD were included. The patients followed either the classic 4-odor OT scheme (COT; n = 34 patients) or an extended 8-odor scheme (EOT; n = 38 patients) for 16 weeks. All patients underwent olfactory testing with a Sniffin'Sticks battery test at 0, 8, and 16 weeks. Of the patients, 38 underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging for OB volumetric assessment before and after treatment.
resultsThe comparison of the olfactory test results did not show any significant difference between the two study groups, in agreement with the OB volumetrics. The convex OB showed better test results than the non-convex OB, with significantly better improvement after treatment regardless of OT type. The EOT group presented significantly better adherence than the COT group.
conclusionThe number of odors did not appear to play a significant role in the effect of the OT. However, the training scheme with more than four odors showed better adherence among the patients in a long-term treatment plan. The shape of the OB may have prognostic value in clinical assessment and warrants further investigation.
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.