ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Arabic version of the self-reported mini olfactory questionnaire (Self-MOQ).
Article 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Point-of-care smell testing for evaluation of olfactory function: a narrative review of clinical utility.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Validity and reliability of the Hebrew version of the Brief Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (Brief-QOD) and the Self-Reported Mini Olfactory Questionnaire (Self-MOQ).Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Arabic version of the Ear Outcome Survey-16 (EOS-16).Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Arabic version of the self-reported mini olfactory questionnaire (Self-MOQ).Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A simple self-assessment screening questionnaire for olfactory dysfunction is direly needed in Rhinology practice, and this questionnaire should be accessible to affected individuals. The self-reported mini olfactory questionnaire (Self-MOQ), constructed to fill this gap, could be an important tool, especially in the era of telemedicine. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Arabic version of the self-reported mini olfactory questionnaire (Self-MOQ) in patients with olfactory dysfunction. Methodology: This cross-sectional study included all adult patients who visited a rhinology clinic between January and June 2023 with a complaint of olfactory dysfunction and a control group. The participants completed a questionnaire that included items on demographics, risk factors of olfactory dysfunction, the olfaction VAS, SNOT-22, and Arabic Self-MOQ. The Self-MOQ was forward- and back-translated by qualified professional translators familiar with American English and Arabic.The reliability of the Arabic Self-MOQ was evaluated using Cronbach's α. The test-retest reliability was assessed by estimating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the total Arabic Self-MOQ score and the individual items. The discriminative ability was examined by comparing the scores of the case and control groups. The construct validity was assessed by comparing the Arabic Self-MOQ to the olfaction VAS. Results: The study sample included 307 respondents (196 cases and 111 controls; 34 undertook the retest). The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.92 (total Self-MOQ) and considered excellent. The ICC for the total Self-MOQ score was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.757, 0.933; Conclusion: The current investigation showed the Arabic version of the Self-MOQ to be a reliable tool for olfactory dysfunction screening.
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.