ArticlePloS one2024
Remote olfactory assessment using the NIH Toolbox Odor Identification test and the brain health registry.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment and behavioural management options for older adults with declined smell and taste functions: a scoping review.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 · 2026Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly identification of deficits in our ability to perceive odors is important as many normal (i.e., aging) and pathological (i.e., sinusitis, viral, neurodegeneration) processes can result in diminished olfactory function. To realistically enable population-level measurements of olfaction, validated olfaction tests must be capable of being administered outside the research laboratory and clinical setting.
aimThe purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of remotely testing olfactory performance using a test that was developed with funding from the National Institutes of Health as part of a ready-to-use, non-proprietary set of measurements useful for epidemiologic studies (NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test). MATERIALS AND
methodsEligible participants older than 39 years and active (within 6 months) in the Brain Health Registry (BHR), an online cognitive assessment platform which connects participants with researchers, were recruited for this study. Interested participants were mailed the NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test along with instructions on accessing a website to record their responses. Data obtained from subjects who performed the test at home was compared to the normative data collected when the NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test was administered by a tester in a research setting and validated against the Smell Identification Test. The age-range and composition of the population ensured we had the ability to observe both age-related decline and gender-related deficits in olfactory ability, as shown in the experimental setting.
resultsWe observed that age-associated olfactory decline and gender-associated performance was comparable to performance on the administered test. Self-administration of this test showed the age-related loss in olfactory acuity, F(4, 1156)=14.564, p<.0001 as well as higher accuracy for women compared to men after controlling for participants' age, F(1, 1160) = 22.953, p <.0001. The effect size calculated as Hedge's g, was 0.41.
conclusionThese results indicate that the NIH Toolbox Odor ID Test is an appropriate instrument for self-administered assessment of olfactory performance. The ability to self-administer an inexpensive olfactory test increases its utility for inclusion in longitudinal epidemiological studies and when in-person testing is not feasible.
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.