ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2024
Reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the brief version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 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.
- 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
- Psychometric evaluation of the translated arabic version of the geriatrics health behavior questionnaire (GHBQ) for geriatric nurses: a cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the brief version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An accessible self-assessment questionnaire is needed to evaluate quality of life in olfactory dysfunction. The need to address this gap led to the development of the brief version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (brief QOD), which holds particular value in the context of telemedicine. Objectives: The aim of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of the Arabic brief QOD. Methods: This study included 307 patients suffering from olfactory dysfunction as well as a control group filled a questionnaire including demographic information, the olfaction Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Sino-nasal Outcome Test 22 (SNOT-22) questionnaire, and the Arabic version of the brief QOD. The Arabic brief QOD's reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α to measure internal consistency. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was employed. The discriminative ability: score differences between the two groups were analyzed. The validity Arabic brief QOD was evaluated by comparing it to the olfaction VAS. Results: The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.757 for Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Parosmia (QOD-P), 0.832 Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-quality of life (QOD-QoL), and 0.817 Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-visual analog scale (QOD-VAS). The reliability of the overall brief QOD was 0.93. The ICC exceeded the acceptable threshold of 0.7, indicating strong test-retest reliability. The highest correlation was observed between the SNOT-22 and QOD total scores ( Conclusion: Excellent validity and reliability have been shown for the Arabic brief QOD as a self-assessment tool assessing quality of life among olfactory dysfunction patients. Level of evidence: NA.
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.