Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38396298›Full record

Observational studyEuropean 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

Impact of olfactory disorders on personal safety and well-being: a cross-sectional observational study.

Liam Lee, Louis Luke, Duncan Boak, Carl Philpott

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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 · 2026
    Trial
  3. The Norfolk Smell and Taste Clinic Experience-A Decade of Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunction.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Patient Experiences, Unmet Needs and Desired Support in Those With Olfactory Dysfunction.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The Need to Promote Olfactory Health in Public Health Agendas Across the Globe.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Spatiotemporal regulation by downstream genes ofFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Liam LeeUniversity of East Anglia Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. liamsl33@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6883-6870
Louis LukeUniversity of East Anglia Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Duncan BoakFifth Sense, Unit 2, Franklins House, Wesley Lane, Bicester, OX26 6JU, UK.
Carl PhilpottUniversity of East Anglia Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesInvestigate safety perceptions, quantify hazardous events, and analyse their manifestations in individuals with olfactory dysfunction through an online cross-sectional survey.

methodsAn online survey, available from 25th February to 28th September 2022, captured data on demographics, olfactory disorder causes, safety concerns, and experienced hazardous events. Distributed via Fifth Sense channels, it targeted individuals with self-claimed olfactory dysfunction.

resultsOf 432 responses, the majority were female (79.6%), aged 41-70, with 20.6% non-UK residents from 21 countries. Leading causes of dysfunction were Covid-19 (22%), idiopathic (20.8%), and congenital (14.4%). Safety concerns were high (85.9%), with gas, smoke, and food as major worries. Over 5 years, 32.2% faced ≥ 1 food incident, 14.8% ≥ 1 gas incident, 34.5% ≥ 1 gas scare, and 18.5% ≥ 1 work incident. Preventative measures were taken by 60.2% at home. Key limitations of this study were self-reported data and sampling bias of charity members.

conclusionThis study highlights the significant impact of smell loss on personal safety and emotional well-being. There is an unmet need in mitigating safety concerns/events for individuals with olfactory dysfunction. We suggest collaborate strategies such as educating the public sector and high-risk sectors (e.g. gas companies), and introducing safety 'scratch and sniff' cards as a screening method. Regular assessment of an individual's olfactory ability, similar to routine assessments for other sensory systems (sight, hearing) may allow proactive identification of at-risk people and corrective measures to take place.

Indexed as

COVID-19Olfaction DisordersAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSafetySurveys and QuestionnairesAnosmiaHyposmiaObservationalOlfactory dysfunctionSafety

Identifiers

PMID38396298
PMCPMC11211102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.