ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Delivery of Topical Drugs to the Olfactory Cleft.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Navigating the efficacy, safety and outcome of intranasal platelet-rich plasma for persistent olfactory loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026Pooled it
- The APOLLO trial: a proof-of-concept study for vitamin A nasal drops in COVID-19-related postinfectious olfactory dysfunction.Chemical senses · 2026Trial
- Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids as Potential Treatments for COVID-19-Induced Anosmia.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Olfactory Loss in Rhinosinusitis: Mechanisms of Loss and Recovery.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Olfactory dysfunction affects approximately 20% of the population globally, with incidence increasing over the age of 60. The pathophysiology is complex, not yet fully understood, and depends on many factors, including the underlying cause. Despite this, the present literature on olfaction is limited due to significant heterogeneity in methodological approaches. This has resulted in limited effective treatments available for olfactory dysfunction. Medications for olfactory dysfunction can be administered locally (directly to the olfactory epithelium) or systemically (orally or intravenously). Currently, there are various methods for local drug delivery to the olfactory epithelium (nasal drops, nasal sprays, atomisers, pressured meter-dosed inhalers, rinses, and exhalation delivery systems). The aims of this review are to summarise the different methods of drug delivery to the olfactory cleft, evaluate the current literature to assess which method is the most effective in delivering drugs to the olfactory epithelium, and review the medications currently available to treat olfactory dysfunction topically. Going forward, further research is required to better establish effective methods of drug delivery to the olfactory epithelium to treat smell disorders.
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.